From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 7 21:45:26 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D819A6; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 21:45:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC7226F8; Sat, 7 Sep 2013 21:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1VIQLo-0007UF-TK; Sun, 08 Sep 2013 01:47:28 +0400 Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 01:47:28 +0400 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: svn commit: r255323 - in head/sys: amd64/conf i386/conf Message-ID: <20130907214728.GG3796@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20130907081743.GB95723@zxy.spb.ru> <20130907170700.GB3796@zxy.spb.ru> <20130907210244.GE3796@zxy.spb.ru> <20130907212957.GF3796@zxy.spb.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" , Bryan Venteicher , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "Andrey V. Elsukov" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Edward Tomasz Napiera?a X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 21:45:26 -0000 On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 02:32:19PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 7 September 2013 14:29, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > > I think we can aim to get this stuff snuck into -HEAD after 10 branches > > > off. Sneaking it into -HEAD now would be way too risky. We can always MFC > > > it later on to hit 10.1 or something. > > > > I think now -HEAD can't be more risky by one or two patches. > > > Hah, the ol' "it's already broken, we can't possibly make it worse" > argument. :-) It's -HEAD! :) But yes, I fear try -HEAD after June. It's broken verty often. > It's ultimately up to re@ at this point, but personally I think adding a > last minute patch to loader primarily for a feature that we'd also have to > rush in as well is too risky. A lot has changed in -HEAD over the last few > weeks and in my opinion we should let the dust settle and get people using > the latest -HEAD before trying out even more new stuff. As we can see by activity in list planed: ipf 5.1, native iSCSI, switch off GCC (with broken by clang kernel part), patch ld.so and many others. Changed in loader and take out modules from kernel at this time is little-o. > We can always back-port it to -10 (and -9 if people want) later on in the > year. Early testing -- early complete.