Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:21:57 +0100 From: phk@freebsd.org To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Message-ID: <3127.1043436117@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:00:57 PST." <20030124190057.91A3B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030124190057.91A3B2A7EA@canning.wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes: >> There is one errata point (can't rewrite BSD boot code on a disk >> which is in use) which I am testing a patch for. >> >> I know of no bugs at present. > >BTW; assuming these are taken care of, do we really gain anything by >waiting so long? Some nights sleep before all hell breaks loose ? :-) >Frankly I'd rather have an extra month focussed on this >code to shake out any remaining quirks and make sure that we have all the >bases covered and that we actually deal with any reasons why folks might be >using NO_GEOM and not letting us know. It would give us an extra month to >solve those before the next release/branch/whatever. I personally wanted to give 5.0-R a chance in the wild, just to see if somebody came up and said "You've busted all PC's in Elbonia" or similar overlooked details. Considering that there has not been a any reports on GEOM/DEVFS which have filtered through to me yet means that I am open to a more aggresive timeline. Show of hands ? When should I remove NODEVFS and NO_GEOM from sys/conf ? When should I commit the consequent unifdef of 2865 lines ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3127.1043436117>