Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:09:51 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: time_t on sparc64 Message-ID: <20031015190951.GA638@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <p06002002bbb33b2002dd@[128.113.24.47]> References: <20031013153219.H45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031014103446.U45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015045429.Q41837@gamplex.bde.org> <20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015074437.GA60338@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015075111.GA52914@rot13.obsecurity.org> <p06002002bbb33b2002dd@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:56:39PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > I agree it would be better if we had 64-bit time_t's for > 5.x-STABLE. I would really really like to see that. However, > we are hoping to make 5.x turn into 5.x-stable with a release > of 5.2 in December. In fact, 5-stable happens no sooner than 5.3 in Feb 2004. Make the switch before 5.2 and you have enough time to deal with ports that suddenly start to break. Since sparc64 is already labeled tier 1, I would suggest we spend the rest of this month (= 2 weeks) getting feedback from the field. If the resistance is small enough, we make the switch early Nov. and use the remaining time to 5.2 as a shake-out period of src. We then use the time between 5.2 and 5.3 to shake out problems in ports. No mistakes: "we" does not include "marcel" :-) -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031015190951.GA638>