Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:15:27 +0100 From: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development Message-ID: <200006202015.VAA66308@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:20:29 PDT." <200006201920.MAA87999@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What about doing the changes on a branch with the understanding that
the branch will *replace* HEAD when it stabilises ?
This sounds odd at first glance, but it means that others are forced
to MFC into the smp branch - if they don't they lose.
Anybody that's not confident to be able to merge into the smp branch
will simply be in the same position - merge or hold off. They'd also
be just as likely to break the smp work with their commits as if the
smp work was done in HEAD.
> :: the kernel stabilizes, or expect large doses of pain. This tag will be
> :: laid down as soon as June 26, 00:00 PST, with a minimum 24 hour warning
> :: beforehand.
> :
> :Thanks for the fair warning. Now don't do it. Has core approved
> :this? I don't think so, I've seen nothign from them about it.
> :
> :The instability ni -current for MONTHS is pain not acceptible. We've
> :never really allowed that in the past. A CVS branch would be mcuh
> :better for this sort of thing. I know that's a pain as well, but this
> :is just for SMP people and the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with
> :the pain.
> :
> :I understand your desire to have it all in a working tree, but causing
> :pain for ALL developers for potentially MONTHS isn't a reasonable
> :request.
> :
> :Warner
>
> The problem is that the changes are simply too extensive to be able
> be able to split them off then merge them back into 5.x N months later.
> Creating another branch will tripple the workload on anyone doing
> merge work.
>
> We knew we'd probably have to do it this way months ago, and Chuck
> Paterson of BSDI confirmed it when he related his experiences with
> trying to manage the BSDI 5.x MP stuff as a separate branch.
> In short, it was a complete disaster, and I have no doubts that
> trying to manage it as a separate branch in FreeBSD would also result
> in a complete disaster.
>
> We've known this day was coming for ages... ever since Jordan announced
> the BSDI merger. Jordan and other core members have hinted, intimated,
> and outright told people that FreeBSD-current would be used for the BSDI
> merge work. Well, the time is now folks!
>
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <dillon@backplane.com>
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>; <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006202015.VAA66308>