From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 28 23:17:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32828106566B for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:17:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexander@leidinger.net) Received: from mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de [217.11.53.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9C78FC14 for ; Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.leidinger.net (p57B3ABDB.dip.t-dialin.net [87.179.171.219]) by mail.ebusiness-leidinger.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 99439844010; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:01:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from unknown (IO.Leidinger.net [192.168.2.110]) by outgoing.leidinger.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69CA11FD; Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:01:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:01:30 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Message-ID: <20101229000130.000052f4@unknown> In-Reply-To: <20101227131140.H6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <201012220852.oBM8q2Qi039123@lurza.secnetix.de> <20101222123834.GN23098@acme.spoerlein.net> <20101227131140.H6126@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.16.0; i586-pc-mingw32msvc) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-EBL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-EBL-MailScanner-ID: 99439844010.A7B93 X-EBL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-EBL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, spamhaus-ZEN, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1, required 6, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.00) X-EBL-MailScanner-From: alexander@leidinger.net X-EBL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1294182098.37447@lu/TBM9OqRe7pnVn4mHC8A X-EBL-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Schedule for releases X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:17:27 -0000 On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:47:32 +0000 (UTC) "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote: >=20 > Hi, >=20 > > I think this is the core "problem". Statistics[1] show, that most > > developers run some form of -CURRENT and > ... > > [1] I just made this statistic up. >=20 > and I think you are just plain wrong here. Seriously I would bet that > >75% of the developers do not run some sort of head for their > day-to-day work. They might use it for compile (and boot and maybe > sometimes even some more) testing, they might run it in a VM, or a lab > machine but not on their servers, not on their notebooks and not on > their desktops they work with daily (and neither would I expect most > consumers of FreeBSD unfortunately). You can count me as one of those which run (more or less) HEAD on his server and (mostly unused) desktop at home. > I am still not convinced that whatever development model people and > companies use (and I heard of in here) is better than to just devel > on HEAD and if it works there merge it and backport it to your release > branch for QA and shipping. It may not be a problem for developers which know enough about FreeBSD, but try to sell this to people which do not know enough about FreeBSD or some management-people (and I'm not talking about the money-argument here). > We still lack the parts that would tell us something in the last week > or last 24 hours caused a regression that made my TCP/NFS/ZFS/UFS/ name it> n% slower. Kris had been doing a good job in the past but as > time shows we need more people, different setups, ... We do not lack the parts, we lack someone to take the parts and get them up and running. See: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-performance@freebsd.org/msg02819.html http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-performance@freebsd.org/msg02821.html > It's not only "compiles", "boots", but also the formerly in this > thread mentioned "works correctly" and in addition to that the "works > well as expected" or "works better than before" - hopefully;). Maybe this could also be used to run the regression tests as one of the benchmarks. If yes: As Robert mentioned, we can not go and tell to run them all in one command (ATM), but we could have each of them as a different benchmark. Bye, Alexander.