From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 20 13:21:53 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from Awfulhak.org (tun.AwfulHak.org [194.242.139.173]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A9B37C063 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:21:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (root@hak.lan.awfulhak.org [172.16.0.12]) by Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA11321; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:15:30 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hak.lan.Awfulhak.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA66308; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:15:27 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200006202015.VAA66308@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: Warner Losh , Jason Evans , current@FreeBSD.ORG, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development In-Reply-To: Message from Matthew Dillon of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:20:29 PDT." <200006201920.MAA87999@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:15:27 +0100 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 > -- Brian 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