Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:34:56 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: "Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse" <jdw@wwwi.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP bugs in FreeBSD 2.1.5 Message-ID: <32641190.3F54BC7E@whistle.com> References: <199610152100.OAA03005@wwwi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse wrote:
>
> <moved to FreeBSD-hackers, not "technically" a bug>
>
> Let me begin by saying that is absolutely not my intention to
> flame Julian or anyone else... Julian has contributed infinitely
> more to the FreeBSD project than I have.. However I've noticed
> an attitude recently which disturbs me.
That's ok, I take this as constructive discussion.
>
> I'm one of the most vehement toers-of-the-line when it comes to
> current vs. stable. In fact, despite the advances in -current
> that would make my life a little easier (and possibly faster),
> every single FreeBSD machine I have deployed, for myself and my
> customers, is running stable/2.1.5. All over the web site and
> in the docs it's billed as the "stable" version vs. current as
> an "experimental" version... and it is just that... very stable.
> Haven't had a single FreeBSD machine panic in ages... some under
> some very heavy loads.
that is correct. The reason is that while we try make -current always
(almost ) compile, and yet have a -stable, is that if we didn't
provide a 'stable' release, those of us trying to make forward progress
would have to spend our whole life supporting "mission critical"
applications under teh shifting sands of -current. Keeping a -stable
release gives us some breathing space. I'm amazed at David's
patience in keeping it as clean as he has.
However the fact remains that many of
us regard freeBSD as having MAJOR FLAWS
(not neccesarily being the same as reliability problems)
and feel that we MUST move forward to correct those.
One of the major pushes under -current has been (for example)
dynamic configuration, and we have been shifting a lot of
building blocks for this into place. Hopefully when they are all there,
FreeBSD will "Suddenly" (after several years of hard work)
"grow" dynamic configuration. Another is keeping up with the ever
changing world of networking technology.
These things however bring instability, and I for one am VERY GRATEFUL
for people such as yourself who, for applications which don't
require new features, have used the -stable release.
>
> Meanwhile, I sat back and watched the debate about -current and
> whether it should be always buildable, etc, for the sake of the
> people who complained when it wasn't. I resisted the urge to
> say something about the silliness of expecting the experimental
> version to work 100% of the time on the old "If you don't have
> anything nice to say..." rule.
Hopefully those conversations mostly occur in the current mailing
lists..
>
> Now, however, I'm a little concerned. Work on -stable has
> effectively stopped with 2.1.5 (reasons why no mystery to list
> readers). However, Brian's message is not the first time that
> someone has said "here is a problem in 2.1.5" and gotten a
> reponse of "that is fixed in 2.2" or "the behavior is different
> under 2.2" or even the dreaded "have you tried it on -current/2.2?"
>
> You [all] told me (on the web pages) not to run 2.2
I didn't ask him to do his work on 2.2, I asked him if by some
chance he had seen whether that problem extended to 2.2.
This is important information when I'm considering whether to go
chasing all through the source code looking for a bug.. :)
(I also checked his examples on a 2.2 box when I could you will notice.)
Now consider why I might ask this question?
I am weeks away from releasing hundreds of machines based
on LAST WEEK's (plus tweaks) version of -current.
You might consider it selfish, but my interest right now is in -current.
As a developer I'm puting my own free time over the next N months on
the line by deciding when to take snapshots of -current and when
and how to patch them.
Now I for one wouldn't suggest that everyone do this
unless they are ready to support the systems themselves,
but I am, and I'm willing to do that work to get features i want in
-current.
>
> I agreed 100% with the reasons listed why a person should
> choose -stable over -current for their production servers, and I did.
> Looking at the flurry of messages on the -current list about "oops,
> now it panics at [xxx] after [xxx] minutes" I think this was the
> right choice.
sure and I thank you :)
but I'm working on -current, trying to get IT to a similarly stable
place.
>
> I'm not crying for tech support of any kind, and I'm certainly not
> insisting that "somebody stop what you're doing and come fix my bugs!"
> I run stable, it is stable and I make no complaints. I have an HP
> CD-R in an NT machine because it won't work in 2.1.5 ("you should upgrade
> to current!") and the problem with pinging multiple IP address Brian
> mentioned is most annoying, but certainly of a minor impact.
>
> It's just that when someone says "I have a problem," and the answer is
> "We fixed that in the version you shouldn't use." That is like saying
> "Have this yummy cupcake," and then putting the cupcake behind 2 inches
> of plexiglass with "WARNING: hard hat area; experts only" painted on it.
ok I can see that might be true.
But it was not what I wanted to say..
remember I want you to be able to get to the cupcake
asap and I'm working hard to make that possible..
If I spend too much time working on 2.1.5
tehn that delays the moment that I can give you
the cupcake..
alternatively, you can always look in the -current sources and
check out all the edits to see what changed. I wasn't trying to say
that you MUST however.. but I have my own perspective on this..
>
> Ok, maybe it is not quite like that, but you see what I mean. ;-)
>
> I guess -current is getting awfully far ahead of -stable. Which is
> natural, since it's moving and -stable isn't. Maybe I'm the only one
> that's starting to feel left behind, like -stable's been unhooked
> from the FreeBSD train (partially because it was slowing the
> train down).
yes but the reason that the train is moving at all is to get to you
faster.. :)
>
> Later,
> Jeff
julian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32641190.3F54BC7E>