From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Dec 11  8:15: 1 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C77314F6B
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 08:14:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15186;
	Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:14:50 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id RAA45257;
	Sat, 11 Dec 1999 17:14:48 +0100 (MET)
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>
References: <1221.944514960@zippy.cdrom.com> <199912062143.NAA72923@apollo.backplane.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <199912062143.NAA72923@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Mon, Dec 06, 1999 at 01:43:33PM -0800
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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