Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:54:47 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Matt Olander <matt@ixsystems.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upcoming release schedule - 8.4 ? Message-ID: <20120614155447.GC2337@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <201206140820.02798.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206111537310.19012@kozubik.com> <20120614042602.GA6638@lonesome.com> <CAJ-VmonEi411MPd9cXJAdJkYRsFLqfNyc5DJe7zkGxsLXBiSxw@mail.gmail.com> <201206140820.02798.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--CFO0SFgG+t1lcV5s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 08:20:02AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:30:19 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 13 June 2012 21:26, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 08:50:24AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > >> The only way that this would really work is if there were dedicated > > >> sustaining engineers working on actively backporting code, testing i= t, > > >> committing it, etc. > > > > > > I'm going to agree with Garrett here. IMHO we've reached (or surpass= ed) > > > the limit of what is reasonable to ask volunteers to commit their spa= re > > > time to. This is doubly true when we have more than one "stable" bra= nch. > >=20 > > I totally concur. >=20 > This is why I think we need fewer branches so that there is less merging = to=20 > do. Even in the bad old 4.x days developers would merge things (especial= ly > driver updates) from HEAD back to 4.x. If we move X.0 releases farther > apart then developers will still MFC things, the issue is that they don't > want to MFC to 2 stable branches. I do not find it cumbersome to merge to two branches. What I find quite demotivating is the conflicts and drifted KPI/API. So my usual reaction to the attempt to merge to stable/8 which fails due to conflicts is just remove the MFC reminder. I do sometimes reconsider the choice if explicitely asked by somebody, but I really prefer to not do risky commits to old and presumably stable branches. I do not have much incentive to merge to 8 anyway, except a warm feeling of providing some relief to a peer. So having long-living stable/8 and not having stable/9 means not doing some merges at all, instead of doing just one merge. YMMV. --CFO0SFgG+t1lcV5s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/aCUcACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jzWACeLpaJcS+tVzkKTZKoLS2CmguT gWIAoOCeRDwOsXtaDppG3/rbt/psU886 =hqj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CFO0SFgG+t1lcV5s--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120614155447.GC2337>