From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 16 21:34:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC25116A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:34:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8AF643D53 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:34:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 18D11148C3; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:34:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:34:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Nicolas Souchu In-Reply-To: <20040716220848.A35405@armor.freesurf.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: rmh@debian.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: some PRs X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 21:34:11 -0000 On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Nicolas Souchu wrote: > Depending on the patch size, some work may or may not take place > on Perforce first. > > Opinions? My only concern is that we may be getting close enough to the code freeze for 5-STABLE, which has so many other areas that need stabilization first, that we might want to consider holding off until 6-CURRENT is branched. I'm guessing, from reading some of the bullet-item summaries, that our ability to ensure stabilization is going to be sufficiently challenged as it is :-) This should probably be a re@ call. I do not remember, myself, when the freeze is scheduled for. mcl