From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 20 15:42:13 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 E5B5737B660 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:41:45 -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 XAA12030; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:38:27 +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 XAA67600; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:38:24 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Message-Id: <200006202238.XAA67600@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Thomas David Rivers Cc: brian@Awfulhak.org, dillon@apollo.backplane.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, imp@village.org, jasone@canonware.com, brian@hak.lan.awfulhak.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Destabilization due to SMP development In-Reply-To: Message from Thomas David Rivers of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:43:00 EDT." <200006202143.RAA84269@lakes.dignus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:38:24 +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. > > > > 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... [.....] > I suppose I can sum this up with "isn't this already handled?" True, if you run current you've gotta be able to cope with the blood. However, I don't think it's a good idea to have a single project prevent a load of other developers from doing their bits - not if it can be helped. I'm sure SMP is not the only code in -current that's not ready for -stable yet. > - Dave Rivers - > > -- > rivers@dignus.com Work: (919) 676-0847 > Get your mainframe (370) `C' compiler at http://www.dignus.com -- 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