Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:42:17 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: mjacob@feral.com, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP discussion moving to freebsd-smp Message-ID: <200006201942.NAA71681@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:34:51 %2B0200." <55236.961529691@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <55236.961529691@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <55236.961529691@critter.freebsd.dk> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : The meaning here is: No, it can't be basically useless for months : on end, but yes, it may be dead for days or maybe even a week. Yes. I agree. I have no problems with it being bolluxed up for 1 day or 1 week or even if it will gain us a lot, 2 weeks. Beyond that, it becomes too painful for me to use the tree. I susepct others would agree with threasholds in this general area, some tigheter some looser. : I think I will agree that requiring UP to compile and work (for : the regular -current definition of "work") for at leat 80-90% : of the days is not an unreasonable requirement. Yes. I object to having the tree be unusable for development work for "on the order of months" with no clear plan. It has taken me too many messages to reach this one sentence summary. Sorry about that. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006201942.NAA71681>