From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Nov 13 17:26:32 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA10553
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:26:32 -0800
Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA10547
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:26:30 -0800
Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00419; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:26:21 -0500
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <199511140126.UAA00419@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns
To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:26:20 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199511140125.SAA01060@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 13, 95 06:25:22 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1464      
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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.

I find it hard to believe it would have taken longer than the 3 or 4 months its
been since he posted them.  Even if there truly was no time to review the
patches for 2.1 since then, would it have not made sense to pull them into 2.2
to get the ball rolling?

-Crh

    Charles Henrich     Michigan State University     henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu

                     http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/