Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 17:37:44 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Multiple stability issues with r208557, r208809 on amd64 Message-ID: <AANLkTinXbfPfMQIBnP4UdRxM6zEDHy5OMhI5JCcyQDad@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimRkJUp7OzLRhGpivceIKWxA0gAVr8wLivLBRyB@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTimwNTFicmuXvMlTAuQpoJxGFzP870S3bJhyg6Rh@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimRkJUp7OzLRhGpivceIKWxA0gAVr8wLivLBRyB@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you mean between the two revisions or something? =A0I committed > r208557 which doesn't seem likely to cause any runtime issue; 208809 > is isp(4) change which is not part of your kernel... > > [delphij@delta] /usr/src> svn log -r 208557 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r208557 | delphij | 2010-05-25 15:19:51 -0700 (Tue, 25 May 2010) | 4 line= s > > Grammar nits. > > Submitted by: =A0 b. f. <bf1783 googlemail com> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > [delphij@delta] /usr/src> svn diff -c 208557 > Index: release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/relnotes/article.sgml > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > --- release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/relnotes/article.sgml =A0 (revision 20855= 6) > +++ release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/relnotes/article.sgml =A0 (revision 20855= 7) > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ > =A0 =A0 =A0 based on <filename>libarchive</filename>, have replaced the G= NU > =A0 =A0 =A0 Binutils versions of these utilities.</para> > > - =A0 =A0<para>BSD-licensed version of &man.bc.1; and &man.dc.1; has > + =A0 =A0<para>BSD-licensed versions of &man.bc.1; and &man.dc.1; have > =A0 =A0 =A0 replaced their GNU counterparts.</para> > > =A0 =A0 <para role=3D"merged">&man.chflags.1; now supports a > <option>-v</option> flag for > @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ > =A0 =A0 =A0 disable the use of TCP options.</para> > > =A0 =A0 <para>&man.nc.1;'s <option>-o</option> switch has been deprecated= . > - =A0 =A0 =A0It will be removed in future release.</para> > + =A0 =A0 =A0It will be removed in a future release.</para> > > =A0 =A0 <para>The &man.ping6.8; utility now returns <literal>2</literal> > =A0 =A0 =A0 when the packet transmission was successful but no responses Hi Xin! Well, I hope that that wouldn't cause my machine to tank (otherwise it likes to be a grammar nazi too much :P)... What I was trying to identify is a general trend in terms of evaluation of different versions of CURRENT; somewhere after the code revision that I noted (r206173), the code appears to be regressing more and more to the point where CURRENT has become completely unusable to me in a development scenario, other than just a throwaway NFS rootfs, s.t. recent code changes need to be thoroughly inspected and the regression / multiple regressions needs to be root caused before 9.0-RELEASE, otherwise this will definitely gate multiple people from upgrading to newer versions of FreeBSD. This probably is somewhat related to the locking changes, and the fact that several drivers might have been broken before, but because there were safeguards around certain sections of code, or because it was operating at a slow enough rate, the system itself appeared sane and happy from the outside. But that's probably just useless conjecture anyhow... I realize that CURRENT is supposed to be relatively in flux and it's primarily for development and evaluation, but I thought that the whole point of having development branches was to avoid the scenario where the software itself was completely unusable on dev boxes so that several folks could work in parallel with [relatively] minor conflicts between each others' changes. Part of the reason why I've avoided passing along pkg_install patches -- I want to make sure that I do my job in testing things to a large degree so I don't break other peoples' machines unnecessarily (and I'm sure that the bulk majority of developers on the project feel the same as well). Thanks! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinXbfPfMQIBnP4UdRxM6zEDHy5OMhI5JCcyQDad>