quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1

Martin Jackson mhjacks at swbell.net
Thu May 4 02:45:19 UTC 2006

Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:21:39PM -0700, David Kirchner wrote:
>> On 5/3/06, Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> This means that
>>> they will take a significant amount of time to fix, and that each fix is 
>>> high
>>> risk, as it is likely to reveal latent bugs.  This means that each fix will
>>> require a lot of testing -- months of testing, in fact.  So the choice is
>>> really, do we release 6.1, or do we skip it and do a 6.2 in a few months.  
>>> As
>>> the release engineer, Scott has concluded that releasing now offers a great
>>> benefit to many people, although the bugs present may penalize some. Mind
>>> you, in some cases the bugs also exist in 6.0, so they don't represent
>>> regressions, so much as bugs that continue to persist.
>> However, one could argue that as quotas worked OK in releases prior to
>> 6.0 (and perhaps earlier), that there is a longer-term regression.
> There was a quota regression in 6.0.  It was fixed 2 months ago.
> AFAIK snapshots and quotas are also broken in 5.x, so the remaining
> problem is not a regression.  The reasons it cannot be fixed in 6.1
> have already been discussed.

1)  6.1 will have many improvements in many areas, including, of great 
interest to me, gvinum, and if_bridge/pf fixes.  It makes sense to 
release these improvements, as well as others.

2)  This is re@'s call.  There has also been mention of the quota issue 
being addressed as an errata item.

3)  There's always -STABLE. :)

Some people have to make tough decisions on projects like this.  We may 
not always agree on the decisions that are made, but can't we respect 
the people who have the responsibility to make them?


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list