From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 17 20:06:15 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A4B16A403 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 20:06:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B43A13C455 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 20:06:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 2802AA55; Thu, 17 May 2007 15:06:15 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:06:15 -0500 To: Craig Boston , Kevin Oberman , Chris , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070517200615.GA19092@soaustin.net> References: <3aaaa3a0705170830g46487cc7occc8a51b82a9118b@mail.gmail.com> <20070517172415.06DEF45042@ptavv.es.net> <20070517183510.GB42562@nowhere> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070517183510.GB42562@nowhere> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Subject: Re: fast rate of major FreeBSD releases to STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 20:06:15 -0000 On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:35:10PM -0500, Craig Boston wrote: > > Now this is totally bogus. The freeze before the 6.0 release was VERY > > long and several have been longer than this one has been so far. > > I think the complaint may be more a result of this being a deeper freeze > than normal. That's correct. > When ports is frozen before a release, it is often still > possible to get things like security fixes and minor updates approved > and committed. The only time it's completely frozen is during > branching, which typically doesn't take very long. Most "freezes" are really more of a slush. This is the first time we've done an absolute, hard, freeze of this length in a long time. But importnng or upgrading several hundred ports, moving those and others from X11BASE to LOCALBASE, and all the associated testing and retesting and re-retesting just simply requires that we have everything locked down tight right now. The alternative would have been to commit what we had and _then_ found out all the bugs in the upgrade process (note: you won't be able to just blindly use portupgrade -af; you will need to read the UPDATING file for the proper procedure. This is the unusual case of being such a sweeping change that the port management tools are not completely up to the task.) > I don't know if portmgr@ has approved any commits during the xorg freeze > or not. Nope. There are simply too many ports that have interdependencies among the xorg ports. mcl