Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:16:06 -0500
From:      "Jeffrey J. Mountin" <jeff-ml@mountin.net>
To:        Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl>
Cc:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG, developers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP!  MFC's
Message-ID:  <4.3.2.20001027125304.022eb440@207.227.119.2>
In-Reply-To: <20001027100225.F28123@fw.wintelcom.net>
References:  <20001027185310.V5433@lucifer.bart.nl> <20001027184107.T5433@lucifer.bart.nl> <20001027094613.E28123@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001027185310.V5433@lucifer.bart.nl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:02 AM 10/27/00 -0700, Alfred Perlstein replied to Joeroen:
>* Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl> [001027 09:53] 
>wrote:
> > -On [20001027 18:50], Alfred Perlstein (bright@wintelcom.net) wrote:
> > >* Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <jruigrok@via-net-works.nl> [001027 
> 09:41] wrote:
> > >> Short: if you value stability, please be careful updating any mission
> > >> critical system for the coming few days.
> > >
> > >If you consider anything as a possible regression for stable users
> > >then I urge you to not even consider MFC'ing.
> > >
> > >-stable is not meant to be a snapshot of -current, it's supposed
> > >to be _stable_ as the name implies.
> >
> > You totally miss the point I was trying to communicate across.
> >
> > While I strive to make sure everything I MFC is tested it can always
> > happen that something for some reason blows up.
> >
>
> > Some things are just beyond your control.
>
>That's understandable, and if things are proceeding as normal then
>there's no reason for potentially creating panic for the users.
>
>However, if there's an 'MFC rush' then I think that's not the right
>way to go about doing it.
>
> > I am just giving people a warning to be careful the next few days in
> > updating their system as I am sure the MFC rushing of some things might
> > occur again.
>
>Again, if you are _sure_ that there will be problems then please
>don't, if you aren't _sure_ then there's no reason to make people
>fear the next release.

Historically I would say that there is some breakage either just before or 
very early in the code freeze.  I agree with Jeroen in that this is 
"normal" and with Alfred in that it could be better.  However, there are 
generally so many commits and they may be well tested, but might conflict 
with other commits.

With the leisurely pace lost to the MFC rush, problems are bound to 
happen.  That is why we have a freeze.

Perhaps Alfred is just trying to say that is was agreed that a bit more 
care should be taken for MFC's, but if those working on their ( well tested 
I trust) MFC's are trying to ensure they make it in time for the next 
release, as the large number for today (the 26th) suggest, then there are 
likely to be some conflicts that are difficult to avoid.  Just a matter of 
statistics IMO.

My suggestion to those likely to be panicked is to sit back and watch the 
show rather than participate.  Ironically received the heads-up *after* I 
just pulled sources.  Figures, but then my expectations are a bit lower 
during this part of the development cycle.  Next week things should settle 
down.  No matter, since I do more building during this period than during 
the 3-4 months in between releases. <shrug>  YMMV

Should also add there seem to be a LOT more false alarms during this period 
due to the flurry of commits and mistimed source pulls.  Those tracking 
-stable should read their mail before we end up with a half dozen threads 
on the same problem, which only adds to the confusion.

.02


Jeff Mountin - jeff@mountin.net
Systems/Network Administrator
FreeBSD - the power to serve



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.20001027125304.022eb440>