Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:26:09 -0500
From:      Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.com>
To:        Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
Cc:        ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: New rc.d code merge timing (Was: Re: Portupgrade confused about editors/emacs)
Message-ID:  <43C05C21.4080500@rogers.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060108001643.GA15000@soaustin.net>
References:  <834B3A07-EC76-4645-8E1B-7ABEA4EC999A@submonkey.net>	<43BE57E9.9060507@rogers.com> <43BE61C9.9060502@ebs.gr>	<43BE63E7.4060209@rogers.com>	<20060106124508.GB14967@droopy.unibe.ch>	<20060106125428.GC79296@pcwin002.win.tue.nl>	<20060106131231.GC14967@droopy.unibe.ch>	<43BF7430.80509@FreeBSD.org>	<20060107191202.GA18881@droopy.unibe.ch>	<43C0568F.7020909@rogers.com> <20060108001643.GA15000@soaustin.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 07:02:23PM -0500, Mike Jakubik wrote:
>   
>> Shame on me for running -STABLE in production then. I've always done 
>> this though, but fortunately its never caused any serious problems. It 
>> is called STABLE after all.
>>     
>
> There was a lot more thought went into this than you are giving us credit
> for.  I was the person on portmgr who originally resisted this change.  But
> after talking through it thoroughly with Doug I finally agreed that there
> was not going to be a better time to do this than now.  We had a two-month
> window before the 6.1 cycle and then we are going to have what may be a
> prolonged release cycle because we are going to try to do 5.5 and 6.1
> simultaneously.
>
> Doug did indeed do testing on some of the major ports on -CURRENT and sent
> mail to, and worked with, the maintainers to get as much of this right as
> could be possible without more widespread testing.  And with that 2-month
> window, that was going to be as much testing as we can get.
>
> The idea is to make 6.1 rock-solid, and with these changes, so that things
> will be simpler and more reliable in the future.  If I didn't think we had
> a very good chance to do it before 6.1, I would have attempted to stop the MFC.
>
> You need to have the background context that Doug and I have butted heads
> before on other issues, so I'm not automatically going to agree with him on
> anything.  But in this situation he presented his case well, he did work
> ahead of time, and has continued to follow-up everything that has been
> brought to his attention.
>
> It's unfortunate that we had to take 1 step backwards to take 2 steps
> forwards but that's life.  The portmgr team spends a great deal of effort
> in running regression tests of bsd.*.mk to avoid these kinds of regressions,
> but even this kind of work cannot give you a 100% guarantee that nothing
> will go wrong.
>
>   

I was just curious, didn't mean to imply anything because i didn't 
notice anything on the lists about this. I fully understand the concept 
of having to take a step back to take two forward, i have the same 
situation with my career now. So thanks to both of you for putting in 
the time, hopefully we can weed out all the problems before 6.1.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43C05C21.4080500>