Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:37:39 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Food for thought Message-ID: <199609031407.XAA28427@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <v02140b05ae51d3bdc27e@[208.2.87.4]> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Sep 3, 96 07:59:17 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Richard Wackerbarth stands accused of saying: > > 1) Although I like the idea that "current" is readily available, forcing > new development to be done against it leads, IMHO, to making people use > something which is more unstable than what they need or desire. The > tradeoff is in the integration. Bollocks. -current is _incredibly_ stable for what is a running second-by-second snapshot of a development tree in full swing. Being aware of the risks, and keeping an eye on the commit mailing lists, I have little or no trouble keeping half a dozen -current systems less than a week out of sync. I don't think I've had any serious problems with -current being anything other than temporarily unstable for many many months now. It's certainly a perfectly adequate platform for development. > 2) The relative reluctance to attempt to support "released" systems. There > appears to be an attitude of "shipped and forgotten". Ever worked for a major software vendor? Ever been one of their victims? Where were you when -stable split off ~12mo ago, putting in the hard yards pulling fixes from the development tree (where they belong) and shadowing them through to the post-release tree? Hmm? > 3) The extremely short test cycle for new releases. IMHO, we should already > have a feature freeze for 2.2 and the leading edge should be planning for > 2.3. Ah, I see an offer of the Release Engineer's hat heading your way. My advice is, duck. > 4) It's too hard for the "average Joe" to isolate various parallel > developments. Often the "unbuildability" of current bounces from one camp > to another. Just about the time one problem gets cleaned up, something > crops up in another area. -current hasn't been severely "unbuildable" for a considerable time. The usual problem is that some twonk says 'make world', and when it dies _immediately_ posts to the list whining. The correct procedure in this case is : - sup again. If you sup regularly, even if your link is a piece of wet string, a resup to get yourself in sync won't take very long. - try your build again. - try 'make bootstrap;make world' - most importantly : wait 24 hours and repeat the process. DO NOT go off abusing people of 'not testing' their code until you are sure beyond all reasonable doubt that it's not _your_ fault. You look _stupid_ when you do. (Believe me, I know 8) and if all else fails : - read the error messages. Cross-correlate between recent commits (You _do_ read the commit lists, right?), and talk directly to recent committers in the affected area. > 5) Unfortunately, only a few of us can afford to have spare machines to > "burn" on instability. How often do we see somebody limping along without > adequate HD? Given the incredibly high level of overall abstraction and interoperability, it's quite reasonable to mix-n-match several different sets of bits and pieces in adequate harmony. Sure, there may be room for improvement. But bitching about it is NOT the right way to go about fixing anything. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609031407.XAA28427>