From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 23 20:04:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9859516A4CE; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:04:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from athena.softcardsystems.com (mail.softcardsystems.com
	[12.34.136.114])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 52F9C43D41; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:04:29 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from sah@softcardsystems.com)
Received: from athena (athena [12.34.136.114])i8NL3wfw022203;
	Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:03:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:03:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
X-X-Sender: sah@athena
To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040923191423.GE61631@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409231519030.19882@athena>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409211531450.32120@athena>
	<41508FEB.6030203@elischer.org><20040923191423.GE61631@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: AoE for 4.x
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:04:29 -0000

>> I'm hoping to have a 5.x driver ready in the next month or two,
>> probably patched against 5.3-stable when it's ready.
>
> Drivers go into the system in the order
> -current
> -stable
>
> This is basically the order we ALWAYS force, to avoid people doing
> development on older branches and a continual loss of functionality.
>
> This means that you (or somebody else) will need to port it to -current
> before it can go into 5.3-stable.

The flip side of this argument is that I can't reasonably
ask customers to pull up -current sources to use a storage
product.  They've got to be able to rely on it and I've got
to be able to manage the service calls.

Eventually I'll have patches against a -stable that's close enough
to a -current that the patch will apply to both.  I'm hoping 5.3
will be this way.

This isn't news to me; I got the same thing from the linux folks.

Sam