From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 13:43:59 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4AE1065670 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:43:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBE48FC0A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbdr11 with SMTP id dr11so597932wgb.31 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:43:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.20.69 with SMTP id l5mr3848873wie.19.1327067037965; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:43:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfleuriot-at-hi-media.com ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l8sm9216623wiy.5.2012.01.20.05.43.56 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:43:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F196F9B.3050506@my.gd> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:43:55 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <4F153AE3.9010602@my.gd> <20120120133826.GB16676@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120120133826.GB16676@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:43:59 -0000 On 1/20/12 2:38 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Damien, > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:09:55AM +0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > D> I'm having an increasingly difficult time defending FreeBSD in our > D> company against the advances of debian kfree which is much easier to > D> maintain. > D> Can we get back to the 4.x release style and, hopefully, see some 9.7, > D> 9.8... ? > D> > D> Check this PR I opened some months ago: > D> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=161123&cat=kern > D> > D> It was planned for 9.0-RELEASE, there is no mention of 8.x > D> That's just the kind of problem John raises here. > D> > D> I can't keep on defending FreeBSD when the minor fix to a major bug > D> isn't backported, and only makes it to the next major version, 4 or 5 > D> months from now. > > Hey, what's the problem here? Fix for kern/161123 has been committed to > stable/8! > > You reminded me, and I promptly did merge, w/o any argument, albeit I have > no ability to test it properly on stable/8. I trust you, that you have tested > in on stable/8, but if anything breaks, guess who would be blamed: me or you? > Don't be mistaken, I greatly appreciate the work you put into this and the time you devoted to fixing this issue which was *a real annoyance* in our case. I'm not saying you didn't merge it Gleb, I'm saying for a loooooooong time I had to manually patch the 8.2-RELEASE boxes, because for some reason that I don't know/understand, the patch couldn't (and still hasn't been, I guess) be merged with 8.2-RELEASE. Actually, on topic, what prevents patches from being merged with -RELEASE, as opposed to waiting for a new -RELEASE bump ? Regarding the patch, we've been running it since I submitted it on over 20 firewalls and they're all humming happily.