From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 24 16:57:06 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 071A6106564A; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:57:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE8B8FC0C; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:57:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.112] (host86-147-11-178.range86-147.btcentralplus.com [86.147.11.178]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 805DD46B38; Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <4DB40E39.5090905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:57:03 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201104240858.p3O8wwqT024628@svn.freebsd.org> <77FE817D-D548-4B79-A64B-C890D94323B9@FreeBSD.org> <4DB40026.5030405@FreeBSD.org> <4DB40E39.5090905@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Motin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r220982 - in head: . sys/amd64/conf sys/arm/conf sys/conf sys/i386/conf sys/ia64/conf sys/mips/conf sys/mips/malta sys/pc98/conf sys/powerpc/conf sys/sparc64/conf sys/sun4v/conf X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:57:06 -0000 On 24 Apr 2011, at 12:49, Alexander Motin wrote: >>> Reverting is not an option. _Constructive_ propositions are welcome. >>=20 >> It is the policy of this project that the release engineering team = has >> final authority over what ships in a release. It is entirely within >> scope to revert this change for 9.0 if issues with the upgrade path = are >> not addressed. My hope also that this path can be entirely avoided >> through a rapid addressing of upgrade path issues that have been = known >> (and discussed on the mailing lists extensively) since you posted = about >> the work on the public mailing lists. >>=20 >> I agree with Bjoern that it is critical to address these issues in a >> timely manner -- our users depend on reliable and easy upgrades, and = it >> seems (on face value) that significant work remains to be done to = make >> that possible. Our release is increasingly close, and it's important = we >> keep the tree as stable as possible so that merges of other = straggling >> features can go uneventfully. >=20 > I am asking for excuse if my tone was overly strict. It was not my = real intention to offend anybody. May be inside I am indeed overreacting = a bit on proposition to revert with no alternative things that I have = put my heart into, which are broadly accepted by users, which I = announced on the list few days ago and got no objections. I am sorry for = that. >=20 > I do worry about possible complications during migration process. And = obviously this is not an easy question, as soon as it wasn't solved = during so much time. I will gladly accept any help or real ideas people = can provide. I just don't like to feel it my own problem. I am not doing = it for myself. It would be nice to see some friendly support instead. Let's be clear: Bjoern didn't say you should revert it immediately. He = said that the migration path needs to be fixed in the next month (2-4 = weeks). That leaves plenty of time to resolve these issues, which I = think the consensus is should have been resolved before committing the = switch, not after. But given that it's in the tree, let's leave it there = for now to continue to improve our testing exposure, and try to get it = fixed as quickly as possible. Robert=