Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 15:17:15 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUP Message-ID: <16074.859418235@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:19:33 PST." <199703262119.NAA16048@kachina.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > But I'm saying we DID give warning! Lots of warning! More than
> > adequate warning! The problem is that people don't friggin' LISTEN to
> > warnings when we give them! We might as well be talking to a field of
> > stumps when we say "Sup is going away soon! Everyone upgrade to CVSup
> > and CTM OK? OK??"
>
> Er, Jordan? Much as I hate to stop a good flame, a better way of
> saying this might be to cite the mail message(s) you used to announce
> this.
Well, here's the article which started it. The entire thread which
ensued would be too long to post, but the eventual concensus was a
resigned "OK, fine, we'll abandon sup - CVSup is simply that much
easier to maintain and it's a lot less load on freefall if we don't
have to cvs update two trees every day for sup, so a reasonable
cost/benefit ratio would seem to exist for this change."
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 15:12:06 -0700
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_subr.c
> Are we still supposed to be maintaining RELENG_2_1_0? I thought that
> ended when 2.1.5 came out. Just asking -- either way is fine with me.
The concensus seems to be that we'll use it as a "support branch" up
until the point where some variant of 2.2 is stable enough to upgrade
to, then it truly will fade away. I don't expect to be doing any
more releases along that branch, mind you, but there's no reason not
to throw the folks who are still following it the occasional bone.
Speaking of which, what do folks think about shutting down sup access
to -stable and forcing a move towards CTM and CVSup for -stablefolk?
It's *very* wasteful to have all those supfilesrv process's scanning
the entire source tree for what are, at most, a couple of changes a
week, not to mention the overhead of cvs updating the checked out
version of -stable for sup on freefall.
Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16074.859418235>