From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 27 15:02:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97823106566C for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:02:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net) Received: from mail.cksoft.de (mail.cksoft.de [IPv6:2001:4068:10::3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B47E8FC15 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 588CE41C7A3 for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:50:06 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cksoft.de Received: from mail.cksoft.de ([192.168.74.103]) by localhost (amavis.fra.cksoft.de [192.168.74.71]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZt+IMJrYmIA for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:50:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.cksoft.de (Postfix, from userid 66) id B417741C733; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:50:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net (maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net [10.111.66.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.int.zabbadoz.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA2244490B for ; Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:47:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:47:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" X-X-Sender: bz@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20101222123834.GN23098@acme.spoerlein.net> Message-ID: <20101227131140.H6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <201012220852.oBM8q2Qi039123@lurza.secnetix.de> <20101222123834.GN23098@acme.spoerlein.net> X-OpenPGP-Key: 0x14003F198FEFA3E77207EE8D2B58B8F83CCF1842 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-2080033646-1293456834=:6126" Content-ID: <20101227133453.P6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> Subject: Re: Schedule for releases X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:02:08 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-2080033646-1293456834=:6126 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: <20101227133453.M6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote: Hi, > I think this is the core "problem". Statistics[1] show, that most > developers run some form of -CURRENT and =2E.. > [1] I just made this statistic up. and I think you are just plain wrong here. Seriously I would bet that >75% of the developers do not run some sort of head for their day-to-day work. They might use it for compile (and boot and maybe sometimes even some more) testing, they might run it in a VM, or a lab machine but not on their servers, not on their notebooks and not on their desktops they work with daily (and neither would I expect most consumers of FreeBSD unfortunately). I am still not convinced that whatever development model people and companies use (and I heard of in here) is better than to just devel on HEAD and if it works there merge it and backport it to your release branch for QA and shipping. This might be a bit more work in the QA cycle but it saves you PYs on updating branches every couple of years and in addition allows you to start to cut a product from any branch {HEAD..your oldest} in theory whenever you want rather than being unable to deliver for half a year or a year. Our naming scheme doesn't matter much in that case. You lay your tags and start your branches yourself. Can you do what you ask us to do? Develop on HEAD and keep your own stuff going all the way down to 8, 7 and 6? In addition if you work on HEAD, you find problems as they occur and not years later when developers have long moved on to other projects and it's a pain for them to task swap back to whatever for a branch that indeed is only barely supported anymore. I know it won't help you with the backporting of new stuff like drivers to kind of unsupported release branches the way you would like to but the last paragraph applies there as well. It might be a lot easier when just done along initially. Having fixed a bug of mine with one of the last 10 commits that happened for RELENG_6, I know the pain. I have also previously agreed with people to not commit changes anymore for the sake that they'd never get the testing they needed - those patches are avail though, in GNATS, ... I know that HEAD is broken once in a while but I think we got a lot better than it sometimes used to be (and similar things apply to stable branches). I have cut images from stable branches in the past; I have given up on that a while ago; I am actually only running HEAD these days (home and production) for the sake of eating that dogfood but also to get all the advantages. I do my own tweaks to it as well, like you would do to your products but I try to keep them to a minimum like I would expect you to as well. I would love to hear from people who previously hit the pitfalls and decided not to go with HEAD again. Why didn't you do it? Do you regret it? Will you change "next time"? We still lack the parts that would tell us something in the last week or last 24 hours caused a regression that made my TCP/NFS/ZFS/UFS/ n% slower. Kris had been doing a good job in the past but as time shows we need more people, different setups, ... It's not only "compiles", "boots", but also the formerly in this thread mentioned "works correctly" and in addition to that the "works well as expected" or "works better than before" - hopefully;). I think this is a community problem as well. We need to have those things show up like quarterly status reports, like nanog gets the weekly CIDR reports, like there used to be "Internet monthly reports" (or do they still exist?), like tinderbox emails come in, ... If you do your daily/weekly/monthly regression tests for your products you can catch that. If you run HEAD, you'll also catch it timely to avoid binary searches of multiple quarters or years. Some of you have the infrastructure and I can understand that you cannot share (most of) it but you could run it on plain FreeBSD as well and show us the reports? Consider to do that regularly (it doesn't have to be daily but maybe (bi-)weekly or monthly). "Budget" for it in terms of infrastructure and employee time. It'll probably save you time (and with that money) in the end and help us to improve the solid foundation you are building your products on. My 0.4cts /bz --=20 Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Going to jail sucks -- All my daemons like it! http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/jails.html --0-2080033646-1293456834=:6126--