From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 19 10:14:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCD937B401 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FCD43F75 for ; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:14:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.9/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h6JHEUFL025665; Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:14:31 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:14:25 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20030719.111425.119026095.imp@bsdimp.com> To: brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030718181018.D972@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <20030718181018.D972@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Committing a driver to -stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:14:37 -0000 In message: <20030718181018.D972@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> Harti Brandt writes: : : Hi all, : : as far as I know new stuff should be first committed to -current and, if : it turns out stable enough, MFCed to -stable. I would like to commit a : driver to -stable that will not be in -current. The driver is for ProSum's : ProATM card. I have recently committed a full busdma driver to current : (patm(4)), that I hesitate to backport to -stable because it requires ATM : infrastructure that we don't have in stable. On the other hand there is a : -stable driver for this card from ProSum (www.prosum.fr) that is reported : to be very stable under -stable :-), that several people use and that I : would like to commit. So, can I do this? Yes. The main reason that we try to commit to current first then to stable is to make sure that patches don't get lost when only committed to -stable. since there's a different way of doing the same thing in current, no new functionality will be instantly lost upgrading to current. Warner