From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 28 18:25:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B845D0; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:25:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10208FC13; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:25:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c0205.aw.cl.cam.ac.uk (c0205.aw.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.100.205]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A16D746B2C; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:25:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r243627 - head/sys/kern Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r From: "Robert N. M. Watson" In-Reply-To: <20121128175116.GI14202@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:25:06 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <41E6060B-5A74-4524-9011-2BFFF5B47E24@FreeBSD.org> References: <201211272004.qARK4qS8047209@svn.freebsd.org> <50B54180.5020608@freebsd.org> <50B54492.5040100@freebsd.org> <956CE44A-BA0F-4FE4-AA38-F4B90C85ECBA@FreeBSD.org> <50B54CE0.6080008@freebsd.org> <2A12C740-1D72-4D30-B663-47A37AAC2FF3@FreeBSD.org> <50B5C4F1.1020002@freebsd.org> <50B64C43.50001@mu.org> <20121128175116.GI14202@FreeBSD.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283) Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , Peter Wemm , svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Alfred Perlstein , svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:25:09 -0000 On 28 Nov 2012, at 17:51, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:39:15AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > A> Personally I don't think we need any more anchors attached to = people's=20 > A> feet when developing FreeBSD. > A>=20 > A> Mistakes will happen, they will happen in head. Slowing down the=20= > A> process to eliminate mistakes only works to slow down change and = give a=20 > A> false sense of "fixing stability" when in fact the only thing = "stable"=20 > A> is the slowness of submitting code. >=20 > This will eventually lead back to the situation when no one runs = head, > because it is unusable. Also, based on past experience: I'm much happier reviewing shaky code = before it goes into the tree than trying to debug it in situ and having = to back it out. If our advice to many companies is that they should = start developing products against head, we can't let the quality of the = head get back to the way it was in the 5.x timeframe. Several factors = have led to our having a nearly-production quality development head over = the last few years -- one is much heavier use of branched development = for features (first Perforce, and more recently, Subversion, git, etc = branches); the other is much heavier use of code review, especially for = critical parts of the system. Device driver authors have a lot more = leeway, but for core parts of the design, seeking review during = development of a feature, and then before merging it upstream, should be = an expectation for all but the most trivial of changes. It's a two-way = street, of course: if you review other people's code, they will review = yours, so as more people use review, the pool of potential reviewers = goes up as well. Robert=