From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 15 11:48:51 2003 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 C170137B401; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:48:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1AF43F3F; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:48:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h0FJmnnN037408 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:48:49 -0800 (PST)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <19a601c2bccf$1fdf3850$5a557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: , "Poul-Henning Kamp" References: <14715.1042634253@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:48:49 -0800 Organization: Errno Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > All the central developers I have talked to agree that this is the > direction we are going. Unless I am Terrybly mistaken, only the > speed of adoption is up for discussion at this point, the direction > is not. You and I talked about this briefly so I'll just voice my opinion publicly. I believe changes of this sort should wait until _after_ 5.1 is cut. This assumes that 5.1 is the "performance and stability" release that compels people to move production machines to a 5.x code base. If 5.1 is this kind of release then I'd want developers to focus their energy on performance and stability issues and not on changes of this sort. My concern is that yanking this code may expose problems that destabilize the system. While this certainly needs to be done I would like to see 5.1 come out quickly; so anything that might cause a slip should be considered carefully. It''s a hard call. I'm conservative when it comes to release engineering. Sam To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message