Jim Bryant wrote:

> Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>> At 1:49 PM -0700 8/27/01, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>>>  > >    If there are grave concerns about having KSE and SMPng in
>>>  > > 5.X, then why not push back the release date?  The value far
>>>  > > outweighs the extra months needed to get it finished and out
>>>  > > the door,   ...etc...
>>>  >
>>>>  Good idea.
>>>     Seriously, is there any reason to hold to a time line
>>> at the expense of some very important and very fundamental
>>> enhancements to FreeBSD?  I suppose that's something for -core
>>> to talk about/discuss, but I bet that if a poll was put on the
>>> homepage of FreeBSD.org (hint hint) asking about this, you'd
>>> get an overwhelming response to see KSE/SMPng in 5.X.  With a
>>> poll you might even pick up some more testers given the exposure
>>> (hint hint).  -sc
>> We can't just keep pushing back the release date because "some
>> very important enhancements" could be made.  It will ALWAYS be
>> true that there are more "very important enhancements" on
>> the horizon, and you can't keep running after those.  You have
>> to pick some point, and stick to that point, and "ship" at that
>> point.  As long as current is known to be in rapid flux, most
> I'm glad you support integration of KSE then...  As I recall such 
> threading was in the original design specs for 5.0, as released when 
> work on 5.0 began.

Just to clarify things...

Myself, and I am sure, many others signed on and committed to the testing of 
5.0-current two years ago under the assumption that 
some of the stated goals of 5.0 were SMPng/fine-grained locking, and native threading.

I'm not lowering my expectations.  And please don't tell me that I put up with panics, 
filesystem corruption, and all of the other 
problems inherent with such testing just to come up with less than we expected to 
begin with.

I agree that this needs to be committed, I also agree that a few small hurdles may 
need to be jumped before the integration [as is 
being discussed in the other thread]...  The point is that it *SHOULD* be committed, 
the very moving target you speak of is the 
enemy to ever getting this finished.  So long as it remains external, most of the work 
on it will merely be keeping it in sync with 
-current, rather than doing the real work of getting it implemented.  Getting this 
internal, committed to -current, is the next step 
in it's development.

Run that through your correctness checker...

ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos!

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to