Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 15:07:21 +0000 From: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com> To: "Remko Lodder" <remko@elvandar.org> Cc: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@flat.berklix.net>, Deb Goodkin <deb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Support for 5.x (Was: Re: What about BIND 9.3.4 in FreeBSD in base system ?) Message-ID: <3aaaa3a0702060707s4b90dd0agef214698a5613e6b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070206144738.GW11375@elvandar.org> References: <200702012319.l11NJJ7r065204@drugs.dv.isc.org> <45C2E612.5080002@FreeBSD.org> <45C3B56E.3060706@rxsec.com> <45C3DCA5.3070908@FreeBSD.org> <45C46EE5.4060404@obluda.cz> <200702031801.l13I1w2p096068@fire.jhs.private> <3aaaa3a0702060521t6586d67ag9352d81b8efe6f21@mail.gmail.com> <20070206144738.GW11375@elvandar.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/02/07, Remko Lodder <remko@elvandar.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:21:44PM +0000, Chris wrote: > > On 03/02/07, Julian H. Stacey <jhs@flat.berklix.net> wrote: > > think you hit the nail bang on the head, I am one such person who > > tried to submit a bug causing crashes and have found a lack of > > enthusiasm to get the bug fixed. One thing I have noticed about 6.x > > is there is many features that 5.x doesnt have, so it looks clear > > there is lots of activity in working on new code but little activity > > in fixing bugs and working on stability. > > Hello, > > I feel poked by this, and it saddens me that this is the reply we > get. I know that we aren't really up to date with feedback on PR > tickets, and that a lot of tickets are stale and never looked at > (I have several of those on my name as well). The sad reason is though > that we are all busy, some of us cannot do more then we can and some > of us (the bugbusting teams) try to house keep the tickets as much > as possible, but that is not always possible with the limited resources > we have. If this bugs you enough; you are always invited to help us > making sure the ticking flow can be handled. > > > > > Example I can give is I noticed freebsd 5.4 has limited support for > > nforce 4 ide, this is year 2005 code, and there was a patch to > > complete the support so sata was supported. Checking the same src > > file on freebsd 6.2 has all references to nforce 4 removed, the patch > > was apperently close to been commited to 6-current at the time so I > > can only guess that they got bored of trying to make it stable so > > simply removed the code to not delay 6.0 release and this explains why > > my hardware works better in 5.x then 6.x on this particular server > > using nforce4. > > Releng_5 is a different working base then 6_x, things that are in 6 > are not always in 5 and visa versa. Can you give me a clear example > of what was removed and what should be there so that I can have a > look at this and perhaps even implement it? If you have a ticket number > that would be even more great so that I can see the audit-trial. > > > > > > In general I have noticed a decline in robustness and stability as > > freebsd release numbers go up, freebsd 4.x was very stable and its not > > hard to see why people refuse to move from it, 5.x was somewhat less > > robust but I think 5.x is more stable then 6.x, 6.x appears to have > > some compatbility problems with hardware and is more picky with what > > hardware it works well with. > > > > If support is planning to be dropped to 5.x early in its life (only at > > .5 release) then it is dissapointing and a sign that there is no > > motivation to work on old code and old bugs. I wonder if a paypal > > slush fund where people who use freebsd can donate to and this slush > > fund is then used to pay devs who fix pr's oldest first of course > > would be effective. > > Obviously you can claim you can do better, please show us, we will > punish you after time with a commit bit and then you can help us out > all the time! Seriously though; the various development paths make > the RELENG_5 branch a development branch and 6 a stable branch. > No one ever said that 5.x was going to live long because of the > transition phase between 4.x and 6.x. > > Given your feedback I expect to see you on freebsd-bugbusters > pretty soon (the mailinglist) to help clear the old PR's and > make sure everything is OK. > > Yes I understand that my tone is a bit harsh, but I think the > statements above are emotional, not based on the reality though, > the teams work very hard to please everyone, but we have limited > resources and cannot do everything. It is rather easy to go pick > on the teams, but that is not somethign that will help solve the > problem. Actually helping out will, so I'd request Chris and > others to help the bugbusting teams and if possible other teams > as well, then and only then we can try to be a brave schoolkid. > > Thanks. > > > > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > -- > Kind regards, > > Remko Lodder ** remko@elvandar.org > FreeBSD ** remko@FreeBSD.org > > /* Quis custodiet ipsos custodes */ > I would if I could code unfortenatly I cant, I only found out about the nforce 4 been present in freebsd 5.x yesterday after someone found the old post and link to the patch when we were discussing it. I have just submitted a post the hardware mail list about it and it has a link to the patch and post from 2004. I do feel a bit upset that freebsd 6.x is been pushed so much as 5.x seems to be a burden on the developers when I have about half a dozen machines in production using 5.x and another half a dozen using 6.x and the 5.x machines are causing the least problems, this is from my own experience, the only benefits I am seeing from 6.x is the extra features and performance. I have 1 freebsd 4.x machine in production and that blows both 5.x and 6.x away for performance and stability but is of course missing many new features. Back on topic with bind I would have thought it would go in both 5.x and 6.x but I do agree that maybe just the security fixes is enough and if someone wants the entire new version they can install from ports. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3aaaa3a0702060707s4b90dd0agef214698a5613e6b>