From owner-freebsd-hardware Tue May 19 11:47:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA16600 for freebsd-hardware-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dt050n33.san.rr.com (@dt053nd2.san.rr.com [204.210.34.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA16421; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:46:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@dal.net) Received: from dal.net (Studded@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dt050n33.san.rr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA04266; Tue, 19 May 1998 11:45:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Studded@dal.net) Message-ID: <3561D367.9EA59B07@dal.net> Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:45:59 -0700 From: Studded Organization: Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.6-STABLE-0507 i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sos@FreeBSD.ORG CC: Hans Huebner , julian@ivision.co.uk, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 12.0 GB Quantum Bigfoot TX IDE seen as 8.4 GB References: <199805191407.QAA02408@sos.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Søren Schmidt wrote: > > In reply to Hans Huebner who wrote: > > > > >What am I going to need to do in order to get to use the drive? I > > >really would rather use it on a -STABLE system even if I then apply > > >a patch to that (potentially rendering it less stable) > > > > I'm beginning to get sick of this. I did port the the LBA code from > > -current to -stable, it works for me since weeks, and it works for > > several other people. I see no reason to not put that into -stable, > > and I'd really like to see that. 2.2.6-RELEASE is what people new > > to FreeBSD are installing, and it should support current hardware, if > > feasible. Supporting large IDE drives is feasible, so why not commit > > it? > > Erhm, this is not in the 2.2-stable charter folks, the patches that > should go into 2.2-stable should only be bugfixes etc, the next thing > is that somebody wants the SMP code into 2.2-stable... > There has to be a line drawn somewhere.... New features are ported to -Stable all the time. The only requirement I've seen for that is that those features must be, you guessed it, stable. :) I have learned that things like > 8 character usernames or SMP can't be ported to -Stable because they involve architectural changes. However something like this (or CAM for that matter, which is already being tested with plans to commit it to -Stable) should make it in. Think about it. If new features were never added to -Stable we'd still be on the 2.1 branch. Doug -- *** Chief Operations Officer, DALnet IRC network *** *** Proud designer and maintainer of the world's largest Internet *** Relay Chat server with 5,328 simultaneous connections. *** Try spider.dal.net on ports 6662-4 (Powered by FreeBSD) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message