Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:42:38 +0800 (WST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: andreas@knobel.gun.de (Andreas Klemm) Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org, cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de, jkh@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-current-stable ??? Message-ID: <199512171542.XAA02873@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.951217083228.405C-100000@knobel.gun.de> from "Andreas Klemm" at Dec 17, 95 09:22:15 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Hi FreeBSD core team ! > > [ Possibly I'm speaking for many other people here ] It's possible. > > Generally I would be interested to help testing and debugging new > FreeBSD-current features. But when reading the -current mailing list, > FreeBSD-current, so to say FreeBSD-2.2 in it's early days, seems to be > an instability nightmare. Perhaps this expression is a bit oversized, > but please understand my point of view. I do dissagree. -current is exceptionally stable for what it is... It's the integration of a bunch of new code that is destined to give the 'feature set' of 2.2.. If we cound create 2.2 without any integration we would, but as we are trying to produce a kernel in 2.2 that has many many new facets, it is inevitable that new code be integrated in -current.. I run -currrent (up until last week) on my machine at TFS.com and I have had NO troubles with it... > > I read in -current very often messages like, can't boot, can't compile, > unreferenced symbols, ... and so on ... > Usually this is pilot error. It usually requires the user to compile more or check their configuration..... Sometimes it's something due to the symbol space cleanup going on, but I tyhink this is vastly overstated.. the -current kernel is in a successfully compilabel state 90% of the time.. from my commercial experience I'd say this is a REMARKABLE achievement.. > Nothing on which you would want to run your home system > (news, mail, www). If you want to do that run 2.1 > > Since I only have one PC and one harddisk, as many other people, > it's not possible for me to switch to -current, because I need > a certain level of stability. you should be able to do all your initial development with 2.1 You can also have two kernel trees (for example) and compile and run 2.2 kernels froma 2.1 tree.. you will have to compile 2.2 versions of some utilities (ps etc) but it's quite doable.. I do it here > > When speaking with people like Martin Cracauer, then I get > the impression, that possibly more people would be interested > to help in FreeBSD developement. Perhaps developing additional > features, too. But they only have one machine, which shouldn't > get into a very unstable state. you don't need to totally upgrade.. you can.. 1/ do development on 2.1 2/ make a chroot tree, filled with 2.2 binaries 3/ use the 2.1 reee with a 2.2 kernel for testing -current is by definition kinda unstable.. it's a feature, not a problem.. > > So how could one attract more people, to work on the bleeding > edge, without loosing stability too much ??!! > > Could FreeBSD-current developement be made more attractive > to more people by splitting -current into 2 branches ? no. > > FreeBSD-current > FreeBSD-experimental > > The FreeBSD-experimental tree should be for typical alpha software > for equipped hackers with two systems or two harddisks ... > If there is a brand new driver with a risk of crashing the systemm > it should be added and tested there. No the code that is SO green that it cashes the systems should be tested in people's private trees.. > If the new driver doesn't cause crashes or such it shoud move to > FreeBSD-current, to introduce it to a larger audience that is > willed to test the bleeding edge. i.e just like now.. > > Such newly introduced feature should be tested well in -current > and should get to a stable state in -current. If it is stable, then > a) it can be added to the -stable branch. > b) you have a stable -current with the newest "tested" features and who is going to 'make' this branch? I run -current... I don't have problems.. if it aint broke don't fix it.. > > This would have the advantage, that more people could work on -current, > since it could be more stable then now. And ... the developers would > work on a developement platform, that has incorporated the newest > features. you should freeze your own environment at a stable point if you want isolation from what'sm going on.... it just means that you will have more to 'catch up' when you merge your changes.. > > What about that ? Too much admin overhaead ? > yes > Perhaps that bit more on administration overhead regarding the > newly introduced source branch can be justified with a certain > increase of FreeBSD-current developers ?! > > Would it be possible to start with such a "beast" by simply > leaving current as it ->> "experimental branch" and by introducing > something like a FreeBSD-beta branch and adding current-changes to > it, that are known to be stable ? > > So you'd have a > > release branch - the last good one > stable branch - fixes for last -release and stable new features > from beta branch > beta branch - new features, something like SNAPSHOT in > it's early hours ;-) > alpha (current) > branch - current for hackers as it is > > Would/could you agree with such a change ? If you would offer a > more stable -current as described, I'd immediately switch to > sup the new beta-branch to see what's new and to give feedbacks... > So I can't :( > It would require almost doubling the work.. after doing your import of changes, youd then have to wait a few hours anf then move the changes to alpha (or whatever) what we have now is working fine... if you can't cope with the TINY hickups happenning then you should tay with -dtable (2.1) and develope with that.. and 'merge the new driver to -curent later. > Andreas /// > > -- > andreas@knobel.gun.de /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH > Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ - Support Unix - aklemm@wup.de - julian.... > \/ > ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz > apsfilter - magic print filter 4lpd >>> knobel is powered by FreeBSD <<< >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512171542.XAA02873>