Date: 02 Mar 2000 12:30:37 -0700 From: Jamie Gritton <gritton@iserver.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: recent vinum changes Message-ID: <x7ln415fvm.fsf@guppy.orem.iserver.com> In-Reply-To: Brad Knowles's message of "Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:00:13 %2B0100" References: <200003021602.JAA12181@guppy.orem.iserver.com> <v04220824b4e462fd1fbd@[195.238.1.121]> <x7n1oh5i8t.fsf@guppy.orem.iserver.com> <v04220827b4e46a4ad8fc@[195.238.1.121]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be> writes: >> We've sent such already, and it matches the log comment... > So you've already talked to Greg about this issue and he's not > interested in back-porting this particular code change to -STABLE? It wasn't that recent. I wasn't the one who sent the emails, but my understanding is that he wanted more specifics, and I wasn't sure if we were ever able to give him a reproducible case (though we were able to reproduce it ourselves). Last I heard on this was a couple of weeks ago. In the meantime, we're not completely without vinum. If I'm careful, I can have one-strike-you're-out mirrors that will at least get me past the first disk crash, and then I can copy the files to new hardware. Then I saw the recent commits and became hopeful that my problems were over. My assumption was that new features may be only for CURRENT, but that bugfixes (and the log labels this as such) are generally added to STABLE. Considering the extent of this particular bug, this seems like just the sort of back-porting issue. > If so, then I have to wonder if vinum is going to be removed > entirely from -STABLE, because without something a basic as this, I > don't see how you can consider it "stable". Quite so. So Greg, can we expect to see this in CURRENT? - Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?x7ln415fvm.fsf>