From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 20 14:44:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp1.vnet.net (smtp1.vnet.net [166.82.1.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A31737BD30 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rivers@dignus.com) Received: from dignus.com (ponds.vnet.net [166.82.177.48]) by smtp1.vnet.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e5KLh3111551; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lakes.dignus.com (lakes.dignus.com [10.0.0.3]) by dignus.com (8.9.2/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA17597; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rivers@localhost) by lakes.dignus.com (8.9.3/8.6.9) id RAA84269; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:43:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas David Rivers Message-Id: <200006202143.RAA84269@lakes.dignus.com> To: brian@Awfulhak.org, dillon@apollo.backplane.com Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development Cc: brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@village.org, jasone@canonware.com In-Reply-To: <200006202015.VAA66308@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> 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. > Isn't this the same thing as breaking the head and keeping every thing else (that is the pre-broken 5.0) on a branch... Just sorta rotating the tree a little... And, isn't this the same idea as -stable? If that's all true - I'd suggest that those who really want stability might be better served with the -stable branch for the interim. If you need a totally-brand-new-feature, then MFC that to -stable and get it there... The point of -current is to be breakable - the extent of the breaking isn't known ahead of time. -current can be broken for a long time by simply breaking several small things - say, one a day for several months. The difference here seems to be the forethought in the announcement; which I take as good planning... i.e. instead of being broken for some unknown reasons, we're simply saying that we know it's broken... If you can't live with a broken situation, then I humbly suggest staying with -stable. I suppose I can sum this up with "isn't this already handled?" - Dave Rivers - -- rivers@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe (370) `C' compiler at http://www.dignus.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message