Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:36:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140136.SAA01103@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199511140126.UAA00419@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <199511140125.SAA01060@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199511140126.UAA00419@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Charles Henrich writes: > > I think you underestimate the time needed to test something so critical > > as this. > > I find it hard to believe it would have taken longer than the 3 or 4 > months its been since he posted them. This assumes that the folks have *nothing* else to work on. There have been plenty of other 'show stopper' bugs in the 2.1 tree that have taken up lots of their time. Heck, I'll bet they could re-write the entire VM system from scratch in 3-4 months. :) > Even if there truly was no time to review the patches for 2.1 since > then, would it have not made sense to pull them into 2.2 to get the > ball rolling? I would never commit a patch that haven't been reviewed or at least tested on my own machines. Just because something 'looks like it solves' a problem doesn't mean it's a correct solution. It may simply hide the problem or move it to somewhere else. There is *nothing* worse than a poor fix. This is NOT to say that Matt's solution was poor, but until it is reviewed and tested it *shouldn't* go into the tree. I've been bitten too many times by committing bad patches to the CVS tree that fix a 'critical' bug,when in fact the fix was worse than the original problem. :( Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140136.SAA01103>