Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:12:31 +0100 From: Tobias Roth <roth@iam.unibe.ch> To: Stijn Hoop <stijn@win.tue.nl> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portupgrade confused about editors/emacs Message-ID: <20060106131231.GC14967@droopy.unibe.ch> In-Reply-To: <20060106125428.GC79296@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:54:28PM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > > A perfect example of this is the recent RCng commits to 6-STABLE. The > > > ports are clearly not ready for this, yet its been committed and left. > > > Now many ports refuse to work. This clearly breaks POLA. > > > > I agree to the RCng example. How long was it in -CURRENT? Two weeks? > > Then MFC it over the christmas season, when there is a high probability > > that maintainers of affected ports might not be around to fix the mess? > > Not good. > > Well, it is -STABLE. Despite the name, the -STABLE charter has always > been 'it might have some bumps when MFCing large features but it > should be OK to run it'. Stuff is MFCed to -STABLE once it has received widespread enough testing and is considered stable. As the outcome shows, this was clearly not the case with the RCng stuff. > If you need absolute stability (like you seem > to indicate by all of your loudly screaming posts), run -SECURITY (ie > RELENG_6_0). Furthermore, implement some kind of test system where you > can see what changes will do to your setup _before_ you run them in > production. Even with -SECURITY you might be the first to run into > some unanticipated problem; no-one can guarantee that something works > on all weird setups in the wild. I do not need education on FreeBSD release engineering. However if you claim that untested and therefore possibly broken things should be MFCed, then maybe you do? After all, what's CURRENT for if things get MFCed untested? > Note also that lots of people don't have issues (ie me), and that Doug > en Brooks have been totally responsive to all reports, from where I > can see. This (at least from my part) was not critique on the responsivenes, but on the time and nature of the MFC. I claim it was not long enough in CURRENT to be MFCed. And since it was known beforehand that the change will possibly affect many port maintainers who will then have to adapt their ports, the time of the MFC was was badly chosen. If I commit or MFC something that I can fix myself during holiday season, that's ok. But if I commit something that needs the help of many people, in case it breaks, the holiday season is a bad moment to commit. Also, solutions to the whole localpkg discussion are under discussion for at least 1.5 years now. If Doug wouldn't had commited his work to CURRENT, the discussion could still drag on and on. So in that respect, I welcome that he ended the discussion with a commit of an implementation to CURRENT. But such a much discussed change should not go to STABLE so quickly. thanks, t.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060106131231.GC14967>