Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:16:08 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_tc.c src/sys/net rtsock.c src/sys/netipx ipx_proto.c src/sys/netnatm natm_proto.c Message-ID: <20050912021608.GB78451@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <4324DF83.1030202@samsco.org> References: <200509071006.j87A6E8s012380@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050911222701.W33344@fledge.watson.org> <20050912013616.GA78451@dragon.NUXI.org> <4324DF83.1030202@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:53:07PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > David O'Brien wrote: > >Building a HEAD kernel on RELENG_ isn't anywhere near a supported > >configuration. I really don't know where you got the idea it was. On a > >6.0-beta2 machine I just did a HEAD 'make kernel-toolchain' - it took > >3m53.49s and allowed me to build a HEAD kernel just fine. > > It might not be supported, but having it work helps people do work. > Having it break for trivial reasons is frustrating and slows down > work. Getting HEAD ready for GCC 4.x isn't a trivial tastk. This was all part of doing that. > >>In the future, could you merge the gcc fixes to the relevant branches > >>before merging the dependent C changes, in order to avoid this sort of > >>thing? > > > >I'm afraid that is unreasonable to do in this case. I'd be waiting an > >undetermined amount of time for RELENG_6 to thaw before I could do this > >work. > > Alternatively, you could ask to MFC it to RELENG_6. I would have > happily said 'yes'. I agree with Robert on this point. I wont get into a public debate about this - as has been expressed by others the MFC request process doesn't always run smoothly. MFC'ing something to RELENG_* isn't a requirement to progress on HEAD. If this was, we'd never be able to rev the toolchain. I don't believe those that insist on building HEAD kernels with a non-HEAD userland have been thru a large compiler upgrade (a.out->2.7->EGCS->2.95->3.x). Otherwise it would be clear that you simply cannot depend on building HEAD code with an old compiler. > >HEAD was already frozen for 1 months this year - you're > >effectively asking me to work as if is frozen for an additional 2 months. > >On top of that - the "relevant branches" is HEAD and only HEAD. Which > >is where the GCC fixes were committed before depending on them. > > >Note that I did the RELENG_5 MFC for you personally, knowing you do try > >to build HEAD kernels on RELENG_*. I would have MFC'ed to RELENG_6 for > >your benefit, but its frozen. You are an RE - please feel free to MFC > >the bug fix. I certainly would not mind. :-) > > David, you're shifting blame here, whatever little blame there is. The blame is that someone is trying to hold blame on me for advancing 7-CURRENT. > Please be a good team player and ask to MFC the change to RELENG_6. No. RE owns the branch - RE is free to MFC things they feel important to have in the release. You guys are experienced professionals and don't need my permission to MFC something RE wants in 6.0-R. In the past I've had multiple bad experience tired of begging to MFC things and then having to send at times multiple begging followup emails to get a response. If I don't feel very strongly about something, I don't bother anymore trying to MFC it during a code RELENG_* freeze. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050912021608.GB78451>