From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 22 08:38:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5571937B401 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from burka.carrier.kiev.ua (burka.carrier.kiev.ua [193.193.193.107]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DCBA43FA3 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:38:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from netch@lucky.net) Received: from netch@localhost [127.0.0.1] (netch@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua with ESMTP id h6MFbsPX050662; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:37:56 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch@burka.carrier.kiev.ua) Received: (from netch@localhost) by burka.carrier.kiev.ua (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h6MFbswo050659; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:37:54 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from netch) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:37:54 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev To: Bosko Milekic Message-ID: <20030722153754.GM76126@lucky.net> References: <20030718091248.GO76126@lucky.net> <20030722060106.GE76126@lucky.net> <20030722092030.GB58118@technokratis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030722092030.GB58118@technokratis.com> X-42: On X-Verify-Sender: verified cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: complicated downgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: netch@lucky.net List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:38:09 -0000 Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 09:20:30, bmilekic wrote about "Re: complicated downgrade": > This sounds like the same symptoms as the latest USB problem... > when/if you track -current or even run one of the 5.x releases, it's > key to realize that this is very active code that you're running; it's > not the same thing as running 4.x, for example. The code in 5.x is > constantly actively changing, whereas the code in 4.x only receives > comparatively well-regulated merges from 5.x, for the most part. > Therefore, one of the things to always try is to update to the latest > -current, rebuild, and see if you can reproduce. Chances are, your > problem may have been fixed and, if not, at least we can be confident > that it's reproducable on your hardware with the latest sources. Well, I can do such mad rides on home machine, but not on remote collocation in another country. Running fresh -current I can get a bunch of some other problems which effectively will prevent system from running ;( The most problem I see preventing having much more wide testbase for -current is continuous nature of its committing. If it were developed, e.g., on week pulse, with only fixing bugs since Thu till Mon, and providing semi-stable snapshot on Mon, it can be more attractive to many users which want to track -current but have no will to deal with permanent panics... (Pulse iteration length can be arbitrary. One week is one averagely reasonable value. 3 months, as in RELENG_4, is too long.) -netch-