From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 6 13:24:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDAE14A1A for ; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:24:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id NAA72775; Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:24:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:24:36 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199912062124.NAA72775@apollo.backplane.com> To: Karl Denninger Cc: Dennis , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: PCI DMA lockups in 3.2 (3.3 maybe?) References: <19991205120428.E6F4514C3E@hub.freebsd.org> <199912061939.OAA22030@etinc.com> <199912062019.MAA72301@apollo.backplane.com> <19991206144330.B25513@Denninger.Net> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Well, I used to run -CURRENT in a commercial environment :-) : :And I got bashed here and elsewhere for doing it too. : :But, with the exception of some really egregious fuck-ups (on both my part :and those of people who committed shit that didn't work AT ALL) it was, by :far, the better option of those available. : :For quite some time there were special "hacks" that I had (primarily :consisting of grabbing older versions of this module or that) to get :around stupidities that were in the process of being resolved, and there :were always things that I disabled or just didn't do because I knew they :were broken. This was an unfortunate consequence which I take partial blame for in my little corner of the system -- but only partial blame. It was hard enough getting my stuff into -current with all the extra requirements core forced onto me, I didn't want to have to go through the same hell to get it MFC'd into -stable as well. At one point at the beginning, before the shit began to fly, I was actually considering only doing it for -current but as more and more bugs were found it became clear that if the stuff didn't get MFC'd into -stable soon it wouldn't at all. By that time the shit was already flying and I just didn't want to double it. Maybe 80% of the bug fixes have been MFC'd -- the ones that were easy to fix. The other 20% can't be MFC'd without the rest of the infrastructure in 4.x to support them. I hope the same thing will not repeat for 4.x/5.x, even without an enforced stabilizing period between 4.0 and 4.1 prior to branching off. However, I think that an enforced stabilizing period where *everyone* is concentrating on 4.1 for a couple of months would be extremely good for the project. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message