From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 15:07:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA10662 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:07:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA10634 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 15:07:00 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA07505; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:09:30 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:09:30 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199512112309.QAA07505@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Bringing stuff into 2.1? Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Since the next release is going to be 2.1.1, what's the policy for bringing in changes to the 2.1 branch from -current? I know of a couple changes that could go into the branch, but I'm unsure what are considered 'ok' changes and which are considered 'experimental'. For example, the sliplogin/slattach changes could go in (they've been running here for months now), but I'm not sure if we want them to go in. I'd also like to see the PPP stuff move in, and even the ibcs2 kernel stuff, but I'm not heading in that direction until we have an idea what the policy is going to be. Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 18:25:13 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA28412 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:25:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA28406 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:25:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA17177; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:23:47 -0800 To: Nate Williams cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:09:30 MST." <199512112309.QAA07505@rocky.sri.MT.net> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 18:23:47 -0800 Message-ID: <17174.818735027@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Since the next release is going to be 2.1.1, what's the policy for > bringing in changes to the 2.1 branch from -current? 1. If you're sure of the change. 2. It doesn't represent radically new functionality (like devfs or IPX) 3. It fixes a bugs or otherwise corrects something that needs correcting (like a missing man page or re-written for clarity doc) 4. It's been tested for awhile in -current. Go for it! > For example, the sliplogin/slattach changes could go in (they've been > running here for months now), but I'm not sure if we want them to go in. I'd say that this qualifies since the 2.1 slattach was already substantially merged from 2.2 before we shipped (you'll recall my railing against our broken slattach). If the evolutionary process has continued in 2.2, and it doesn't jeopardize functionality, cool. > I'd also like to see the PPP stuff move in, and even the ibcs2 kernel > stuff, but I'm not heading in that direction until we have an idea what > the policy is going to be. The iBCS2 stuff is a little iffy, but I'd argue that #2 could be ammended slightly for anything not on the critical path. ibcs2 stuff doesn't fall into that category, and if the changes result in better ability to run MORE binaries, I don't see why it shouldn't be brought across (given provision 4). My (and I believe everyone's) chief concern is that we not break the tree. That means being _really_ careful the ensure that any changes brought across don't have dependencies on other areas of -current which may not also make it in. The last thing we need is to break _all_ ibcs2 binaries (or something) because only half of the components were brought over. :-) Jordan From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 22:29:30 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA10668 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA10662 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08347; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:31:52 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:31:52 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199512120631.XAA08347@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Nate Williams , stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-Reply-To: <17174.818735027@time.cdrom.com> References: <199512112309.QAA07505@rocky.sri.MT.net> <17174.818735027@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Since the next release is going to be 2.1.1, what's the policy for > > bringing in changes to the 2.1 branch from -current? > > 1. If you're sure of the change. > 2. It doesn't represent radically new functionality (like devfs or IPX) > 3. It fixes a bugs or otherwise corrects something that needs correcting > (like a missing man page or re-written for clarity doc) > 4. It's been tested for awhile in -current. > > Go for it! All right. What kind of time-frame are we looking at here? The reason I'm asking is I want to shake out some of the more 'critical' portions of the merge (any of the kernel mods I'd like someone else to look over before they go in) and I don't want to push things to the wire. Is a 'drop-dead' date of February a workable goal, so it leaves us all of February for a Real(tm) beta-test cycle? > My (and I believe everyone's) chief concern is that we not break the > tree. That means being _really_ careful the ensure that any changes > brought across don't have dependencies on other areas of -current > which may not also make it in. The last thing we need is to break > _all_ ibcs2 binaries (or something) because only half of the > components were brought over. :-) Right. I'll make sure (in a test environment even) that it works w/out any other changes. But, I wanted to get the go ahead to do it before I spent the time doing it. Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 22:37:28 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA11025 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:37:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11019 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:37:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA18034; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:36:05 -0800 To: Nate Williams cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:31:52 MST." <199512120631.XAA08347@rocky.sri.MT.net> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:36:05 -0800 Message-ID: <18032.818750165@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > All right. What kind of time-frame are we looking at here? The reason > I'm asking is I want to shake out some of the more 'critical' portions > of the merge (any of the kernel mods I'd like someone else to look over > before they go in) and I don't want to push things to the wire. Is a > 'drop-dead' date of February a workable goal, so it leaves us all of > February for a Real(tm) beta-test cycle? I'd like to start wrapping things up in February. I didn't really anticipate a prolonged BETA test cycle since that would sort of imply that we screwed up and brought in *too* many changes. This is supposed to be a fairly simple `re-roll the release' cycle, and if it isn't then we need to consider just what we did to make that not happen (and kill someone for it :-). Jordan From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 22:42:42 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA11148 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:42:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11142 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:42:39 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08389; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:45:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:45:04 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199512120645.XAA08389@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Cc: Nate Williams , stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-Reply-To: <18032.818750165@time.cdrom.com> References: <199512120631.XAA08347@rocky.sri.MT.net> <18032.818750165@time.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > All right. What kind of time-frame are we looking at here? The reason > > I'm asking is I want to shake out some of the more 'critical' portions > > of the merge (any of the kernel mods I'd like someone else to look over > > before they go in) and I don't want to push things to the wire. Is a > > 'drop-dead' date of February a workable goal, so it leaves us all of > > February for a Real(tm) beta-test cycle? > > I'd like to start wrapping things up in February. I didn't really > anticipate a prolonged BETA test cycle since that would sort of imply > that we screwed up and brought in *too* many changes. But wouldn't it be nice to have a Real(tm) beta-test cycle for once? It appears that we still have problems with stability in 2.1, given the amount of reboots we're seeing, and I'd like to see those resolved. I just started seeing reboots on my 2.1 box which ran the exact same workload under 2.0R with uptimes of 60 and 90 days, and I can't get over a week with it in -stable. I just enabled dumps, so hopefully I can provide more information. > This is supposed to be a fairly simple `re-roll the release' cycle, > and if it isn't then we need to consider just what we did to make that > not happen (and kill someone for it :-). While I think 2.1 is a *great* release, I think there is a bogon lurking in the kernel somewhere biting us, and I'd like to see it tracked down and violently killed. (Whoops, the redneck in me is showing there...) Nate From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 23:20:07 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA12767 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12732 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id XAA02250; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:02 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id XAA00196; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199512120720.XAA00196@corbin.Root.COM> To: Nate Williams cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 95 23:31:52 MST." <199512120631.XAA08347@rocky.sri.MT.net> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:02 -0800 Sender: owner-stable@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >All right. What kind of time-frame are we looking at here? The reason >I'm asking is I want to shake out some of the more 'critical' portions >of the merge (any of the kernel mods I'd like someone else to look over >before they go in) and I don't want to push things to the wire. Is a >'drop-dead' date of February a workable goal, so it leaves us all of >February for a Real(tm) beta-test cycle? Get your changes in before the end of January. Past that, I make no promises. We want to get another release out sometime towards the end of the first QT of '96. -DG From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Dec 11 23:21:58 1995 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA12813 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:21:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA12808 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA18193; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:34 -0800 To: Nate Williams cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:45:04 MST." <199512120645.XAA08389@rocky.sri.MT.net> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:20:34 -0800 Message-ID: <18191.818752834@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > But wouldn't it be nice to have a Real(tm) beta-test cycle for once? It > appears that we still have problems with stability in 2.1, given the > amount of reboots we're seeing, and I'd like to see those resolved. I > just started seeing reboots on my 2.1 box which ran the exact same > workload under 2.0R with uptimes of 60 and 90 days, and I can't get over > a week with it in -stable. I just enabled dumps, so hopefully I can > provide more information. Well, I'm all for fixing the bugs but I don't think that declaring a "beta" will help much. Consider all the time we had between 2.0.5 and 2.1 to shake out the bugs and they clearly still didn't get shaken out. People's tolerance to BETAs seems to have dwindled to the point where I'm lucky if I get 3-4 mails during the BETA cycle. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that declaring a 2-3 week BETA for 2.1.1 is going to net us anything but gratuitous delay. It's sort of like the 4MB installation problem - the time to start working on it is *now*, not 3 weeks before the release, and the same goes double for any kernel pathogens. Jordan