> I was just going to use that same evidence to argue the opposite... > the fact that beta5 is 3 months old and we're still finding > significant bugs (including the assertion violation that Sujay posted > about yesterday, which coincidentally Brad had just run into as well) > says to me that we don't want to consider anything as stable until > it's been through at least 3 months of availability. So, do you want to maintain a separate branch of all of those fixes for several months? I don't. I'm not personally trying to produce a rock solid product for people. I expect people to help out and help move things forward. The longer we go between stable releases the further people are behind and the more difficult it is to keep people up with the main tree. Many of those bugs would also not be found if it weren't for people other than us, because as you say we don't do enough testing on our own since we don't use it in a wide enough range of circumstances.
> Seems like the big thing is that we want to separate bug fixes to the > stable rev from new features/enhancements that haven't been widely > tested. One solution is along the lines of what you suggested... > maybe we maintain the "bleeding edge" version as a public mq patch > list, and the "stable" version is just what's fully committed to the > repo. Bug fix patches can then bypass new-feature patches to get into > the stable version more quickly. > One thing we'd have to emphasize internally is that pushing to the > public patch list should still be done only when you have the same > level of confidence that you currently should have before pushing to > the central repo. Agreed. > Another concern I have is that I haven't used multiple mq patchsets > much... if I have this public patchset because I'm on the bleeding > edge, plus maybe some internal company shared patchset for the stuff > I'm working on with colleagues, plus my own patches for what I'm > currently working on, how cumbersome does that get? I don't know, but I do believe that you can ask mq to use multiple patch sets. I haven't learned how yet, but I think there are arguments to the mq commands to say which queue you want to use and you can apply them on top of eachother. > If we narrow it down to a couple of concrete options and can't decide > among them, then asking m5-users sounds fine. I'd rather not move a > very general discussion over there though. ok. _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
