From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 14:27:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C03F1065678; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:27:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EA08FC0A; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhn14 with SMTP id hn14so715340wib.13 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:27:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.95.199 with SMTP id dm7mr52376769wib.9.1327069620998; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfleuriot-at-hi-media.com ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm10sm9597109wib.4.2012.01.20.06.26.59 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:27:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F1979B2.9050908@my.gd> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:26:58 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <4F153AE3.9010602@my.gd> <20120120133826.GB16676@FreeBSD.org> <4F196F9B.3050506@my.gd> <20120120135936.GC16676@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120120135936.GC16676@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus, longevity, and lifecycle X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:27:02 -0000 On 1/20/12 2:59 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 02:43:55PM +0100, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > D> Don't be mistaken, I greatly appreciate the work you put into this and > D> the time you devoted to fixing this issue which was *a real annoyance* > D> in our case. > D> > D> I'm not saying you didn't merge it Gleb, I'm saying for a loooooooong > D> time I had to manually patch the 8.2-RELEASE boxes, because for some > D> reason that I don't know/understand, the patch couldn't (and still > D> hasn't been, I guess) be merged with 8.2-RELEASE. > D> > D> Actually, on topic, what prevents patches from being merged with > D> -RELEASE, as opposed to waiting for a new -RELEASE bump ? > > It cannot be merged into RELEASE! RELEASE is a point on a branch, > as soon as RELEASE had been released, you can't push anything into > it, unless you have a time machine. > > So, the fix has been merged to the branch you reported problem on, > this means that it'll be available in the next release from this > branch - in 8.3-RELEASE. > Ok good to know (and too bad for us running -RELEASE). I guess at some point I'll have to study the possibility of us running -STABLE, perhaps that would be acceptable. Thanks for ensuring it'll be in 8.3 anyway :)