From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 24 10:27:01 2004 Return-Path: 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 A237A16A4CE for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:27:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from srv01.sparkit.no (srv01.sparkit.no [193.69.116.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F2643D4C for ; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:27:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eivind@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ws.nada ([193.69.114.88]) by srv01.sparkit.no (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8OAQsa5026117; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:26:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from eivind@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ws.nada (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ws.nada (8.12.9/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8OAN572067776; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:23:05 GMT (envelope-from eivind@ws.nada) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by ws.nada (8.12.9/8.12.10/Submit) id i8OAN5uA067775; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:23:05 GMT (envelope-from eivind) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:23:04 +0000 From: Eivind Eklund To: Sam Message-ID: <20040924102303.GF61631@FreeBSD.org> References: <41508FEB.6030203@elischer.org> <20040923191423.GE61631@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:27:01 -0000 On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 04:03:58PM -0500, Sam wrote: > >>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. Of course. This isn't the flip side, though - it's a argument about something completely different. The way this usually goes is that (A) Somebody develop a driver for whatever branch they can easily do so on - either -current or -stable. (A.2) Port it to -current if it was not developed there (C) Get it committed to -current (D) Let it sit in -current for a while, fixing any bugs that may turn up (D.2) Port the driver to -stable if it was not developed there (if it was developed there, the person just provide the patches for that branch with the bugs found since commit fixed) (D) Commit it into the relevant -stable branch Often, for author-maintained drivers, the driver over time gets some ifdefs etc added to make it possible to use the essentially same sources on both the -stable and -current branch. But the commit to -current is always done before -stable, because FreeBSD (as a vendor) will not allow the backwards slippage that WOULD happen if we did not strictly enforce this. > 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. You will probably never have a better chance than 5.3. My guess is that the next -stable branching (6.x-stable) will be at least two years in the future, and 5.4+-stable will be much further diverged from 6.0-current than 5.3-stable will be. Please take this as friendly information; we have policies that we have to follow to keep the quality of FreeBSD high, and unfortunately these have to add some extra hardship for authors :-( Eivind.