From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 16 15:13:39 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA10301 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA10288 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA00794; Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <32655CDB.59E2B600@whistle.com> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:08:27 -0700 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b6 (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" CC: Jake Hamby , Jeremy Sigmon , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.2.x release question References: <29588.845495654@time.cdrom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > 1) More pounding on devfs (is it planned as a standard feature installed > > by sysinstall, or more of an optional feature installed by hand?) > > The latter. AFAIK, Julian still hasn't solved the persistance problem > (though we discussed a number of different ways it could be done > fairly trivially and I don't know what's holding him up) real work (TM) > and people running > with it as their /dev still show an unfortunate tendency to crash > a lot, that's actually not true at all. > so no. personally I don't think persistance is of any importance but I hear the crowd yelling for their placebo's so I will do it some time.. but it tripples the complexity of the filesystem. > > > So the way I see things (and since I'm not a core team person, this is > > just my opinion), FreeBSD 2.2 could easily be released by Christmas, or > > even the end of November. I think if the core team puts the squeeze on > sure.. > NFS weirdness seems to be the #1 monster under the bed with 2.2 - > might some of you folks out there with multiple machines be willing to > assist John and Doug with some stress-testing? If you can find and > reproduce bugs yourselves, that's even better (e.g. they need someone > to help play QA team on NFS). > we're using 2.2 heavily.. we have 3 outstanding problems one of which might be solved but I haven't checked.. > Jordan