From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 22 15:05:45 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC2116A401 for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:05:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC18013C48A for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:05:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [10.0.0.248] (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2MF5jgt026430 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:05:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <46029B48.9000906@errno.com> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:05:44 -0700 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070208) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hay References: <20070322092609.GA58744@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20070322092609.GA58744@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: current to 6-stable merge plans/policy X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:05:46 -0000 John Hay wrote: > Hi Guys, > > What are the ideas (policy) about merging the arm/ixp425/avila stuff > to 6-stable? I see some arm stuff gets merged, but it does not look > like everything? Is it just that people merge what they need? > > Just trying to get a feel for it. Up to now I have used 6-stable on > our soekris and wrap boards, but we are probably going to use the > Avila boards a bit more, so I was wondering if I should use -current > or 6-stable on them. Up to now my Avila and ADI testing was done with > -current, but I'm not sure if that is a good idea for boxes that will > end up in rural areas far far away. Hmm. Not that I have seen a panic > on the Avila boards, but they have gone through a lot less testing up > to now. Not sure what's been missed. I see no reason not to MFC anything arm-related unless it breaks code compatibility (and even there it's unlikely there are 3rd party codes to worry about). Sam