From owner-freebsd-smp Tue Jun 20 12:38: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F8A37BBFB for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:38:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA41514; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:38:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id NAA71564; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:36:33 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <200006201936.NAA71564@harmony.village.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: SMP discussion moving to freebsd-smp Cc: mjacob@feral.com, Matthew Dillon , freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:30:04 +0200." <55142.961529404@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <55142.961529404@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:36:33 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message <55142.961529404@critter.freebsd.dk> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : I don't agree with your rather rabid "current must always work" : attitude, having been one of the primary people through the : 1.0 to 2.0 transition I know how many developers that cost us. -current needs to always be buildable. It should always be bootable, but the periods of time that it isn't should be measured in weeks, not months. I'm not insisting that it be rock solid all the time, so if that's what people are reading, I'm doing a poor job at comunicating. I'm objecting to a vague "it will be painful for months, cope" plan, for which I must assume that it will be so bad for months that I won't be able to get any work with it done. If it is stable enough for developers after a few days/weeks and I can get work done without unrelated bugs crashing me all the time, that's cool. If it crashes, on the average, after an hour or two, or under heavy load, that's also OK, so long as it is fixed by a release (which is the plan, as I read it). If it is so unstable that it won't even boot and run for 5 minutes for the next several months, I don't think that's acceptible. I think that code going into the tree has to have at least some minor level of stability for most users. I think we disagree on what that level of stability is. The whole 1.0 -> 2.0 transition is a blur to me now... I think that much of my objections will be answered if I can get a clearer picture of the level of pain, what the likely problems would be and just what the plan is. If these things were clearer, I would be much more confortable. I think that's the real issue I have with all of this. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message