Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:14:48 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCI DMA lockups in 3.2 (3.3 maybe?) Message-ID: <19991211171448.E36957@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199912062143.NAA72923@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:43:33PM -0800 References: <1221.944514960@zippy.cdrom.com> <199912062143.NAA72923@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:43:33PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > If we enforce a stabilizing period between .0 and .1 and branch at .1 > rather then at .0, this combined with the 12 month schedule should result > in pretty damn good releases. > > If we just do the 12 month schedule, I don't think it will produce as > good a result. I'd just like to point out how I've understood what NetBSD is doing here: 1. Put down the branch 2. Ask all developers to switch to that branch, and drop using -current for stabilizing changes and other changes that should go into the release branch 3. After a suitable period of this (when the branch is considered ready to 'go golden'), ask all the developers to switch back to -current. 4. Merge the changes from the branch back to -current. This seems like a good way to kick-start a branch; you get a while when there is focus on stabilizing among developers that are actually running the branch, while there still is somewhere to stick the 'dangerous' changes. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991211171448.E36957>