TCP SACK backport to -STABLE

[Paul Saab]

Jon Noack wrote:

>Eli Dart wrote:
>  
>
>>Careful there.....one major reason I use FreeBSD is that, compared
>>with the other operating systems I can use, major breakages are rare.
>>
>>I expect the policy that prevents you from deploying the most
>>featureful OS available is there to avoid the late-night pain
>>required to run the latest and greatest features in production.
>>
>>It would be a shame if stability were lost in a rush for new
>>features.  If smarter people than I feel that SACK should be
>>backported, great.  However, I for one greatly appreciate the
>>commitments to stability and POLA that are so much a part of FreeBSD.
>>    
>>
>
>>From the Release Engineering document:
>FreeBSD-CURRENT is the "bleeding-edge" of FreeBSD development where all
>new changes first enter the system. FreeBSD-STABLE is the development
>branch from which major releases are made. Changes go into this branch at
>a different pace, and with general assumption that they have first gone
>into FreeBSD-CURRENT and have been thoroughly tested by our user
>community.
>
>These types of backports happen all the time, and having another person to
>share the load is not a bad thing.  Active maintenance of RELENG_4 is good
>for everyone, and those interested most likely have stability as their
>first priority anyway (because otherwise they wouldn't be using RELENG_4).
>
>Regardless, the original work was done on RELENG_4 and ported to -CURRENT:
>http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-src/2004-June/025956.html
>  
>
And bugs have been found since that time.  We need more time and testing 
before anything should be backported to -stable.