Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:54:53 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030921055453.GA40942@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210134060.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20030921053059.GA40776@rot13.obsecurity.org> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210134060.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:44:35AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > I don't think committing fixes for -current breakages should cause > problems for 4.9-RELEASE (especially with the caveat that they be > compile tested on -stable). Out of curiosity, what's the reason > the tag can't be laid now? In a better world, freezing -stable > shouldn't hinder -current. There are other fixes that are still being committed. It was a release engineering decision to upgrade kde and gnome for 4.9-R, and there are still bugs being shaken out as a result. Since you (and others who have expressed similar puzzlement about the need for ports freezes) are not involved in the actual mechanics of FreeBSD release engineering, please just try to accept that there are technical challenges in making sure that things don't go wrong at the last minute, and the way we try to make sure the release doesn't get botched up by a poorly-considered change at the 11th hour is by enforcing a period of quietude on the tree so that there's a reasonable chance that any problems will be detected before the release instead of after. This is the reality of it, and wishing that things were different just isn't productive right now. > > What, precisely, do you object to in the above proposal? >=20 > 1, 2, and 3. I don't think backing out -pthread change helps > much in fixing ports... Again, why? Please explain instead of asserting, because that's getting us nowhere towards resolving this. Kris --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/bT0tWry0BWjoQKURAmWSAJ9SeAYSx+0Mzaj6oZJ3ALBUz9w9ZQCfdp9R i6BV4BabhA5jUM9jahF/1Mw= =mO6B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030921055453.GA40942>