From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 23 12:10:44 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9F810656C8;
	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:10:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.129])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21D28FC0C;
	Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:10:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id 24B7773098; Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:16:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:16:08 +0100
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Oleg Bulyzhin <oleg@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20090123121608.GC46033@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <20090123081028.GA38763@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<20090123085337.GB54838@lath.rinet.ru>
	<20090123092312.GC40642@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<20090123094420.GC54838@lath.rinet.ru>
	<20090123102114.GA42867@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<20090123102552.GD54838@lath.rinet.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090123102552.GD54838@lath.rinet.ru>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, re@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: backporting dummynet's q_time change ? (svn 184414)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:10:45 -0000

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:25:52PM +0300, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
...
> > understand - my question is whether there is strong objection
> > in applying the real fix (the one in HEAD) rather than this
> > workaround.
> > In my opinion the MFC is quite safe as I explained.
> > 
> > cheers
> > luigi
> 
> I see. I have no objection but i think this is policy question so i'm not the 
> right person to ask.

your feedback on technical issues is still important and a prerequisite
for acting.
The policy is there to prevent, among other things, breakage in upgrades,
which in this case are not possible so the policy should not
affect us.

cheers
luigi