Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:25:22 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140125.SAA01060@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199511140119.UAA00359@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <199511140057.RAA00978@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199511140119.UAA00359@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Henrich writes: [ Why didn't the 'pause' bug get fixed ] Nate > There are only so many hours in a day, and those 24 were spent Nate > making 2.1 as good as it could get. If this means that the Nate > system still has a 'feature' of pausing under certain conditions Nate > I don't mind it as much as rebooting and/or panicing under more Nate > common scenarios. > I tend to agree with that, however if Im not mistaken (I could be, its > been awhile) Matt provided source patches at the time that fixed the > problems, would it have been that difficult to review the patches and > apply them? Since the VM system is *very* sensitive to even minor modifications, I suspect it would have taken a *very* long to review the patches, apply them to the system, and then test them. Even very simple errors can cause *massive* corruptions, and I'm sure both David and John would rather avoid that for something as critical as the 2.1 release. I think you underestimate the time needed to test something so critical as this. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140125.SAA01060>