From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 19 09:52:25 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36223B1C for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:52:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC312088 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:52:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 66084 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2013 10:35:47 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 19 Aug 2013 10:35:47 -0000 Message-ID: <5211EAD0.1060404@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:52:16 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Subject: Re: status of autotuning freebsd for 9.2 References: <51D90B9B.9080209@ixsystems.com> <51D92826.1070707@freebsd.org> <51D9B24B.8070303@ixsystems.com> <51DACE93.9050608@freebsd.org> <520DC77C.1070003@ixsystems.com> <520DE306.4080004@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <520DE306.4080004@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: stable@freebsd.org, re@freebsd.org, nonesuch@longcount.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: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:52:25 -0000 On 16.08.2013 10:29, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 16.08.2013 08:32, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Andre, I'm kind of bummed out this didn't make it into 9.2, I'm wondering can I commit this to >> 9-stable now? (or is it already in?) > > It didn't make it because there was only sparse feedback after the > call for testers. There were a couple of replies that it is being > tested but no statements either way if it was good or not. Hence > I erred on the side of caution and refrained from committing it. Revisiting the history of this after vacation absence actually shows that we straddled the release code freeze deadline and you had provided good testing feedback. However the MFC got rejected by RE on the fear of introducing unknown regressions into the release process. >> Would you do the honors? > > Yes, will do later today. Committed to stable/9 as r254515. Let me know if there are any issues. -- Andre