Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 19:19:26 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andrew Thompson <thompsa@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r189594 - head Message-ID: <20090310021926.GA51405@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20090310013810.GC22633@lonesome.com> References: <200903091922.n29JMjLR035306@svn.freebsd.org> <20090309194338.GA48593@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090309195805.GA53225@citylink.fud.org.nz> <20090309222705.GA49870@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090310013810.GC22633@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:38:10PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > > As mlaier has pointed out, -current has sharp edges. It's one of > 3 choices open to you, the other two being -stable (which will still > have ports regressions from time to time -- see xorg -- and sometimes > even src regressions), and a release, which is the best we can do with > respect to QA. If you can't deal with having your system out of > commission on occasion, then -current isn't for you. > Oh Please! I've run -current since it was called 386bsd+patchkit. I've lived through the gcc 2.6.3 to gcc 3.x transition, the replacement of devfs by phk with a new improved devfs, the problems with libm and the changes to stdio.h among many others. The facts remain that the USB2 transistion was poorly executed. Contrast USB2 with Ed's new TTY layer. Ed gave a month or more headsup that a new TTY layer was coming. He enumerated the drivers that were broken and actively solicited people with the affected hardware for help. He furthermore helped those people fix as many driver as possible before committing the new TTY layer. As part of portmngr, you know Ed also actively fixed many ports broken by the new TTY layer and/or helped others fix the ports before the new layer became standard. The fact that USB2 broke such a fundamentally important port as Xorg suggests a lack of testing and planning by those who rushed the USB2 transition. If you and others take off your rose colored glasses, you'll see that the USB2 transition could have been handled better. Hopefully, you're willing to learn from your mistakes. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090310021926.GA51405>