From owner-freebsd-stable  Mon Dec 11 22:42:42 1995
Return-Path: owner-stable
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id WAA11148
          for stable-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:42:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA11142
          for <stable@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 22:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08389; Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:45:04 -0700
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:45:04 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199512120645.XAA08389@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net>, stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Bringing stuff into 2.1? 
In-Reply-To: <18032.818750165@time.cdrom.com>
References: <199512120631.XAA08347@rocky.sri.MT.net>
	<18032.818750165@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > All right.  What kind of time-frame are we looking at here?  The reason
> > I'm asking is I want to shake out some of the more 'critical' portions
> > of the merge (any of the kernel mods I'd like someone else to look over
> > before they go in) and I don't want to push things to the wire.  Is a
> > 'drop-dead' date of February a workable goal, so it leaves us all of
> > February for a Real(tm) beta-test cycle?
> 
> I'd like to start wrapping things up in February.  I didn't really
> anticipate a prolonged BETA test cycle since that would sort of imply
> that we screwed up and brought in *too* many changes.

But wouldn't it be nice to have a Real(tm) beta-test cycle for once?  It
appears that we still have problems with stability in 2.1, given the
amount of reboots we're seeing, and I'd like to see those resolved.  I
just started seeing reboots on my 2.1 box which ran the exact same
workload under 2.0R with uptimes of 60 and 90 days, and I can't get over
a week with it in -stable.  I just enabled dumps, so hopefully I can
provide more information.

> This is supposed to be a fairly simple `re-roll the release' cycle,
> and if it isn't then we need to consider just what we did to make that
> not happen (and kill someone for it :-).

While I think 2.1 is a *great* release, I think there is a bogon lurking
in the kernel somewhere biting us, and I'd like to see it tracked down
and violently killed.  (Whoops, the redneck in me is showing there...)


Nate