From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jun 20 1: 4:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from smurf.jnielsen.net (12-254-136-47.client.attbi.com [12.254.136.47]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CC5337B40E; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from max (max.local [192.168.0.9]) by smurf.jnielsen.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with SMTP id g5K83YwS001020; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:03:34 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from stable@jnielsen.net) Message-ID: <030c01c21831$1ac8b320$0900a8c0@max> From: "John Nielsen" To: "Michiel Boland" Cc: , "Soeren Schmidt" , References: <20020620085158.K54942-100000@alexander.diva.nl> Subject: Re: ATA tags bug fix committed to -releng4 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 02:04:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michiel Boland" To: "John Nielsen" Cc: Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:59 AM Subject: Re: ATA tags bug fix committed to -releng4 > > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, John Nielsen wrote: > > [ata tags bug fix committed to -releng4] > > > I think it must be committed to RELENG_4_6. Codebase is the same, > > > bugfix is clear, usefullness is clear. ;)) > > > > > > I second the motion, although if any other fixes are immediately pending it > > would be prudent to commit them to RELENG_4 for a bit of exposure and then > > do a single "ata patch" commit to RELENG_4_6. > > > > JN > > Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought the RELENG_4_6 branch was for > cricitcal security fixes only. IMHO merging this fix would set a dangerous > precendent. It's "for security advisories and other seriously critical fixes." It probably would be an overstatement to say that the ATA issues some have been having with 4.6 are "seriously critical." But it MIGHT not be. :) I will admit to having my own agenda on this--I maintain a server with a Promise RAID controller in a mirrored config. It's been running -stable to get the latest ATA stuff, but I'd like to get it back to running a release version. I haven't updated the machine recently so I don't know if these latest fixes would affect it or not. I agree that merging minor bugfixes into a release branch is not good practice. But if the ata fixes turn out to be not-so-minor, I wouldn't mind seeing them go in in this case. JN To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message