From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 13 13:07:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B323037B401; Tue, 13 May 2003 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CA043F3F; Tue, 13 May 2003 13:07:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4DK7POn004736; Tue, 13 May 2003 16:07:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h4DK7OmP004733; Tue, 13 May 2003 16:07:25 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 16:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Heiko Schaefer In-Reply-To: <20030513215348.K14785@daneel.foundation.hs> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: re@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 5.1-RELEASE TODO X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 20:07:40 -0000 On Tue, 13 May 2003, Heiko Schaefer wrote: > > That said, we are actively discussing what, if any, workarounds are > > appropriate, including some alternative workarounds from the ones > > currently present. > > bosko (who was mentioned here various time, regarding a patch to work > around this) has contacted me, and i am looking forward to try his > patch. assuming that the patch is correct (whatever that would mean in > this context), and there is some chance of accepting it anytime soon, > maybe it would be sensible to try to get that into the release - or > delay the release until this is sorted out ?! > > wouldn't a release that corrupts data in many, relevant, cases (i > consider the box i had the trouble with entirely mainstream) be worse > than no release at all? You don't need to argue to me that we need stability (I'm a fan of it myself): what I need is evidence that some set of changes is actually solving the problem, not masking it. If there exists a patch that substantially improves stability on some set of systems (and not at the cost of another set), I think you can rest assured that we'll get it into the release. As with you, we're very concerned by the recent spate of instability, especially in the beta cycle, and how to address that is very much on our minds. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories