quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1
linimon at lonesome.com
Thu May 4 02:19:09 UTC 2006
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:21:39PM -0700, David Kirchner wrote:
> Would there really be harm in putting off a release until these well-
> acknowledged bugs are taken care of?
Yes. We tagged the ports tree on April 14th, and that's the last date
of any changes the CDs will ship with. That's a sufficiently long time
that some of these ports are now getting stale.
Every single day added now allows more ports to become stale, including
minor security problems. There have been so many changes to the ports
tree since then that if a port had a major security problem, we could
possibly be forced to rebuild a large number of packages, and retest.
This would add another 3-4 weeks to the release cycle, all just to go
back over the testing we thought we just finished.
And, of course, during that time someone else will find another pervasive
problem in the source tree and lobby for it to be fixed, which introduces
more things that need to be tested, with more risk, and ...
To summarize: at some point you do, indeed, have to ship something. You
have to choose a point where the least number of users will see regressions
vs. the most number of users will see improvements. (Not everyone uses
If there are regressions, then I recommend that people use the previous
release without that particular bug (or, more likely in the case of
something like this, where the bug was there but just much harder to
Conclusion: it's impossible to satisfy everyone. We just have to do our
More information about the freebsd-stable