Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:16:43 -0600 From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) To: Mike Jakubik <mikej@rogers.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: <20060108001643.GA15000@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <43C0568F.7020909@rogers.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > One question though, were the porters notified of the upcoming changes? > And were they provided with the appropriate information to write the RC > scripts before the merge? Yes. Please see the archives (although some of this went on, as does a lot of work on FreeBSD, behind-the-scenes). Honestly, I believe that this was the best we could do in the absence of a branched ports tree (which IMHO we do not have the manpower to maintain in a timely fashion), and even if we had had such a thing, it _still_ might not have been sufficient to ensure widespread testing. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060108001643.GA15000>