Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:24:36 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Karl Denninger <karl@Denninger.Net> Cc: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCI DMA lockups in 3.2 (3.3 maybe?) Message-ID: <199912062124.NAA72775@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19991205120428.E6F4514C3E@hub.freebsd.org> <199912061939.OAA22030@etinc.com> <199912062019.MAA72301@apollo.backplane.com> <19991206144330.B25513@Denninger.Net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Well, I used to run -CURRENT in a commercial environment :-)
:
:And I got bashed here and elsewhere for doing it too.
:
:But, with the exception of some really egregious fuck-ups (on both my part
:and those of people who committed shit that didn't work AT ALL) it was, by
:far, the better option of those available.
:
:For quite some time there were special "hacks" that I had (primarily
:consisting of grabbing older versions of this module or that) to get
:around stupidities that were in the process of being resolved, and there
:were always things that I disabled or just didn't do because I knew they
:were broken.
This was an unfortunate consequence which I take partial blame for
in my little corner of the system -- but only partial blame. It was
hard enough getting my stuff into -current with all the extra requirements
core forced onto me, I didn't want to have to go through the same hell
to get it MFC'd into -stable as well. At one point at the beginning,
before the shit began to fly, I was actually considering only doing it
for -current but as more and more bugs were found it became clear that
if the stuff didn't get MFC'd into -stable soon it wouldn't at all.
By that time the shit was already flying and I just didn't want to
double it. Maybe 80% of the bug fixes have been MFC'd -- the ones that
were easy to fix. The other 20% can't be MFC'd without the rest of
the infrastructure in 4.x to support them.
I hope the same thing will not repeat for 4.x/5.x, even without an
enforced stabilizing period between 4.0 and 4.1 prior to branching
off. However, I think that an enforced stabilizing period where
*everyone* is concentrating on 4.1 for a couple of months would be
extremely good for the project.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912062124.NAA72775>