From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 11 18:00:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9C4C61; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:00:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org) Received: from noop.in-addr.com (mail.in-addr.com [IPv6:2001:470:8:162::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E29F8FC19; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:00:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gjp by noop.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.80.1 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1TiU7w-000LEt-9R; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:00:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:00:20 -0500 From: Gary Palmer To: Mark Saad Subject: Re: Will we get a RELEASE-9.1 for Christmas? Message-ID: <20121211180020.GC20011@in-addr.com> References: <201212092031.NAA17017@lariat.net> <201212092215.PAA17770@lariat.net> <201212101735.KAA02736@lariat.net> <201212102352.QAA09737@lariat.net> <20121211140043.GB20011@in-addr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on noop.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: Brett Glass , Adrian Chadd , stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:00:33 -0000 Short summary: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2012-December/071023.html On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:18:44AM -0500, Mark Saad wrote: > So what is the short summary ? From what I can see, the wiki is out of date > again. the ISO are on the master server, and working out to the mirrors. > FreeBSD update is still not updated. Does someone just need to just update > the wiki with the relevant info ? > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Gary Palmer wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 08:06:24PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Brett Glass wrote: > > > > At 04:29 PM 12/10/2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > > > > >> There's politics in every organisation. There are ego clashes in every > > > >> organisation. Sometimes you'll fit in, sometimes you won't. If you > > > >> feel there are issues, find people inside the community who you do get > > > >> along well with and talk with them about it. > > > >> > > > >> It sucks, yes. I'm one of those "shut up and code already" types and I > > > >> deal badly with politics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Me, too. That's why I have been contributing code quietly through > > others > > > > rather than putting myself out in the front lines. > > > > > > > > In any event -- back to the original topic -- there should indeed be > > better > > > > communications between the Release Engineering team and the community. > > > > The time it takes to post updates -- especially as it gets close to > > release > > > > time -- would be recovered many times over because folks like me > > wouldn't > > > > have any need to e-mail regarding status and projected schedules. ;-) > > > > > > I whole-heatedly agree... but I know a little about release > > > engineering for a large project, especially when the release team is > > > unpaid and has to honor commitments to $real_job. Release engineering > > > is very detail-oriented and unforgiving. This is not really > > > compatible with part-time work. > > > > > > The RE must be focused, first ans foremost, on getting a release out > > > the door as quickly as possible and not to have any serious problems > > > with that release. This makes it very had to pull bakc and make > > > announcements or even update posted schedules. That is made even worse > > > by hte desire to make such communication accurate or at least useful. > > > Since there is a LOT of guessing involved in pulling together a > > > release (how long will "Joe" take to fix this problem or why are there > > > half a dozen reports of a serious issue with the RC, when no one else > > > can reproduce it or even figure out what part of the system is causing > > > it), RE folks are usually reticent about trying to give out any > > > information since it will most likely be inaccurate. > > > > > > This is why I accept the line that it will be released when it is > > > ready. I really think it's about ready, but not even the head of the > > > 9.1 RE team KNOWS when it will be ready, even if the ISO builds are > > > started. "There is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip." > > > > I don't remember seeing any updates in e-mail, but the > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/news/2012-compromise.html > > > > url has been updated. Its a litle out of date now (last update about 2 > > weeks ago), but it does include information on the release of 9.1 and what > > is holding it up (specifically getting a minimal set of packages built). > > With the 2 branches tagged (ports and src) it is likely still a matter > > of getting stuff built in a known clean environment. > > > > Gary > > > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > -- > mark saad | nonesuch@longcount.org