ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!
karl at denninger.net
Tue Sep 12 07:15:55 PDT 2006
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> Karl Denninger schrieb:
> >This is not cool folks.
> I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)
> -STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable and
> working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain
> stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to release.
You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,
and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something being
broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!
Guys, what's written in a handbook may be all well and good, but its what
<really happens> that matters - and this is what has "really happened" for
the last ten years with FreeBSD!
I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back to
-STABLE from -CURRENT that it <at least> be tested for the most common
functionality (that is, does it work at all?) In this case all that someone
had to do was boot the system and then detach and reattach a mirror component -
the most basic of functionality - to detect that the patch was bad.
That obviously wasn't done in this instance.
I understand that finding corner cases and expecting exhaustive testing
is unreasonable from a free project - even in a -RELEASE we don't get that.
But this wasn't a corner case - it was a situation where absolutely zero
testing was performed before the MFC was sent back to the source tree.
Karl Denninger (karl at denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind
More information about the freebsd-stable