on 18/01/2012 02:16 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches
to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours
personally, but you get my gist).
Let me pretend that I don't get it. It is as much your code as
on 18/01/2012 01:09 Devin Teske said the following:
I'm ready to say that the 9-series should instead be the chosen
outlier when it comes to picking one single release to have an ultra-wide
lifecycle.
But how can you say that without knowing what will (can) come in 10. Maybe it
will have
on 17/01/2012 00:28 John Kozubik said the following:
FreeBSD is becoming an operating system by, and for, FreeBSD developers
Just want to express my _personal_ opinion on this statement.
I think that the proper tense for the statement would perfect - has become.
And I think that that is
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 1/16/12 3:32 PM, William Bentley wrote:
I also echo John's sentiments here. Very excellent points made here. Thank
you for voicing your opinion. I was beginning to think I was the only one
who felt this way.
[...]
We seem to have lost our way
On 18 January 2012 09:25, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 02:16 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches
to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours
personally, but you get my gist).
on 18/01/2012 12:44 Robert Watson said the following:
My view is therefore that we have a social -- which is to say structural --
problem. Regardless of .0 releases, we should be forcing out minor
releases,
which are morally similar to service packs in the vocabulary of other
vendors:
on 18/01/2012 12:54 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
On 18 January 2012 09:25, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 02:16 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches
to be submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix
on 18/01/2012 12:47 Poul-Henning Kamp said the following:
FreeBSD has _always_ been a project by the community, for the community
and there is no way it can be any other way.
Well, reading this http://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD-ng it seems that in the past
there was a for users component
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 18/01/2012 02:16 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
Seriously, WTF is the point of having a PR system that allows patches to be
submitted??! When I submit a patch I fix *your* code (not yours personally,
but you get my gist).
Let me pretend that
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/01/2012 00:28 John Kozubik said the following:
we going to run RELEASE software ONLY
My opinion: you've put yourself in a box that is not very compatible with
the current FreeBSD release strategy. With your scale and restrictions you
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
The other thing I think has been missing (as several have pointed out in
this thread already) is any sort of planning for what should be in the next
release. The current time-based release schedule is (in large part) a
reaction to the problems we had
Robert Watson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 1/16/12 3:32 PM, William Bentley wrote:
I also echo John's sentiments here. Very excellent points made here.
Thank you for voicing your opinion. I was beginning to think I was
the only one who felt this way.
[...]
We seem
On 18 January 2012 11:08, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 12:54 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
[snip]
There are about 5000 open PRs for FreeBSD base system, maybe more.
There are only a few dozens of active FreeBSD developers. Maybe less for
any
given particular
on 18/01/2012 13:54 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
On 18 January 2012 11:08, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 12:54 Igor Mozolevsky said the following:
[snip]
There are about 5000 open PRs for FreeBSD base system, maybe more.
There are only a few dozens of active
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Igor Mozolevsky i...@hybrid-lab.co.uk wrote:
On 18 January 2012 01:11, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
It takes time to review and test patches. There are a lot of people
that think it only takes 30 seconds to download the patch, apply, and
commit.
On 18 January 2012 13:11, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Igor Mozolevsky i...@hybrid-lab.co.uk
wrote:
One way to
encourage people to fix their code would be to prevent them from
committing to -CURRENT once they pass a certain threshold of
On Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:41:48 am Ivan Voras wrote:
(answering out of order)
On 16/01/2012 23:28, John Kozubik wrote:
2) Having two simultaneous production releases draws focus away from
both of them, and keeps any release from ever truly maturing.
This isn't how things work.
Den 18/01/2012 kl. 03.21 skrev Devin Teske:
Looking at bin/164192...
I'm left wondering to myself...
How on Earth did a regression-by-typo introduced in SVN r214735 go 14 months
without being noticed?
Because the regression tests in FreeBSD don't cover this part of the code?
:-)
[snip]
For starters, what would be much more appreciated is for devs to be
much more involved from the start once someone does submit the patch.
I appreciate that people a fallible and from time to time are bound to
forget that they have a PR with a patch assigned to them, but there's
no
Am 17.01.2012 um 20:54 schrieb Steven Hartland:
- Original Message - From: John Kozubik j...@kozubik.com
It's amazing how many people are in the exact same boats - waiting for 8.3,
getting locked out of new motherboards because em(4) can't be backported
to even the production
Just noticed that tab-completion in /bin/sh has been added in 9.0 (verified
that it is not there in 8.0, dunno if it's there in 8.2, could probably go
digging to figure it out). In addition to the command history via
up:down (which is present in 8.0) FreeBSD sh is now actually a pretty
usable
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:56 AM
To: Mark Felder
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus,
On 18 January 2012 17:06, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:56 AM
To: Mark Felder
Cc:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 18/01/2012 12:44 Robert Watson said the following:
My view is therefore that we have a social -- which is to say structural --
problem. Regardless of .0 releases, we should be forcing out minor releases,
which are morally similar to service packs in
On 18 Jan 2012 17:12, Igor Mozolevsky i...@hybrid-lab.co.uk wrote:
On 18 January 2012 17:06, Devin Teske devin.te...@fisglobal.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Julian Elischer
Sent:
On 18 January 2012 17:30, Chris Rees utis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 Jan 2012 17:12, Igor Mozolevsky i...@hybrid-lab.co.uk wrote:
Back in the days when the UK banks ran ATMs, c on Windows NT (I
have no idea what they are running now)
Well I've not seen any BSOD'd cashpoints around for a
On 1/18/12 3:32 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
Another possibility is to get some combination of {The FreeBSD
Foundation, iX Systems, ...} to trawl the bug report database in a
more official capacity. The problem there is that this will be a
high burn-out job. I'll bring it up at the next
on 18/01/2012 19:13 Daniel Eischen said the following:
someone who owns a branch... - If you cut release N.0, do not
move -current to N+1. Keep -current at N for a while, prohibiting
ABI changes, and any other risky changes. If a developer wants to
do possibly disruptive work, they can do it
-Original Message-
From: mozolev...@gmail.com [mailto:mozolev...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Igor
Mozolevsky
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 9:12 AM
To: Devin Teske
Cc: Julian Elischer; Mark Felder; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FreeBSD has serious problems with focus,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:11:02 +0200
Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 12:47 Poul-Henning Kamp said the following:
FreeBSD has _always_ been a project by the community, for the
community and there is no way it can be any other way.
Well, reading this
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.orgwrote:
we really need a bud-submitting-user advocate..
Someone (need not have a commit bit) who doesn't take charge of the patch,
but, rather,
acts as a project manager in hte process of getting it in.
i.e. finding, and
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:49:23 -0800
Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 1/18/12 3:32 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
Another possibility is to get some combination of {The FreeBSD
Foundation, iX Systems, ...} to trawl the bug report database in a
more official capacity. The problem
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
I've suggested this before without much response, but since this thread
seems to be encouraging repetition I'll give it another go. ;)
I think a bounty system would be very effective(e.g. micro-donations of
recent
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Julian Elischer jul...@freebsd.orgwrote:
we really need a bud-submitting-user advocate..
Someone (need not have a commit bit) who doesn't take charge of the patch,
but, rather,
On 18 January 2012 18:27, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
I've suggested this before without much response, but since this thread
seems to be encouraging repetition I'll give it another go. ;)
I think a bounty system would be very effective(e.g. micro-donations of
recent
On 18 January 2012 17:56, Andriy Gapon a...@freebsd.org wrote:
on 18/01/2012 19:13 Daniel Eischen said the following:
someone who owns a branch... - If you cut release N.0, do not
move -current to N+1. Keep -current at N for a while, prohibiting
ABI changes, and any other risky changes. If a
Hi Poul, Andriy,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
FreeBSD has _always_ been a project by the community, for the community
and there is no way it can be any other way.
(You can consider this a law of nature as far as voluntary organizations
of intelligent beings governed by the
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Robert Watson wrote:
I think John gets a lot of what he wants if we just fix our release cycle.
Agreed. I still think that having two production releases running
simultaneously really hurts focus and the end product, but that's not
going to keep us from using
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
I was thinking about this and I'm with Andriy on this: such solution
has no long term potential and will only serve to stagnate the
innovation. This has been repeated over and over in this thread, but
it's worth another mention, currently, there are
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:46:45 -0600, John Kozubik j...@kozubik.com wrote:
And as long as we're repeating ... :)
Since 9.0 is already out of the bag, I think a decent approach would be
to fizzle out 8.x on the current timeline/trajectory (maybe 8.4 in 6-8
months, and maybe 8.5 in a year or
On 01/18/2012 11:46, John Kozubik wrote:
- mark 9 as the _only_ production release
While I understand your motivation, I am not sure this is a workable
goal when combined with the goal that others have expressed of longer
timelines for the support of a given branch. Speaking from personal
Hi,
Alexander, thanks your for your advice.
We were thinking of finding a mentor in the GSOC way, but we
understand that it will be more productive and surely more educational
to just ask our questions on the mailing list. We will do so.
We've had some time to look around the links and ideas
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM, John Kozubik j...@kozubik.com wrote:
Hi Poul, Andriy,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
FreeBSD has _always_ been a project by the community, for the community
and there is no way it can be any other way.
(You can consider this a law of
One port build (www/neon29) fails for me on 9.0 (i386, freshly upgraded
from 8.2), configure fails with the message: cpp: error trying to exec
'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory
I tracked in down to the PATH variable passed to cpp, when PATH begins
with /usr/local/bin, cpp breaks in 9.0.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:00:44AM -0500, Matthew Story wrote:
Just noticed that tab-completion in /bin/sh has been added in 9.0
(verified that it is not there in 8.0, dunno if it's there in 8.2,
could probably go digging to figure it out). In addition to the
command history via up:down
On 18 Jan 2012, at 11:47, Robert Watson wrote:
It strikes me that the first basic plan would be a release schedule, however.
:-)
7.4 - no further development
8.3 - Mar 2012
9.1 - May 2012
8.4 - July 2012
9.2 - Sep 2012
8.5 - Nov 2012
9.3 - Jan 2013
8.6 - Mar 2013
9.4 - May 2013
8.7 -
On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
10.0 - Nov 2013
I think 10.0 should be released based on feature-readiness and not on
some arbitrary date...
--
Igor M.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
On 18 Jan 2012, at 22:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
10.0 - Nov 2013
I think 10.0 should be released based on feature-readiness and not on
some arbitrary date…
You can always redefine the feature-set to meet the date. :)
-
on 18/01/2012 20:39 Mike Meyer said the following:
There were developers in the community for whom seeing people using
their code was the priority goal.
Trust me, there are still a lot of developers like that even now.
The problem is not with the developers, it is with the users!
They got
On 18 January 2012 22:53, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
On 18 Jan 2012, at 22:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
10.0 - Nov 2013
I think 10.0 should be released based on feature-readiness and not on
some arbitrary date…
On 18 Jan 2012, at 22:59, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 18 January 2012 22:53, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
On 18 Jan 2012, at 22:50, Igor Mozolevsky wrote:
On 18 January 2012 22:31, Mark Blackman m...@exonetric.com wrote:
10.0 - Nov 2013
I think 10.0 should be released based
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:20:56PM -0600 I heard the voice of
Mark Felder, and lo! it spake thus:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:46:45 -0600, John Kozubik j...@kozubik.com wrote:
This is nice because no upheaval needs to happen with 7 and 8, and
interested developers do not get kneecapped vis a vis 9
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Yuri y...@rawbw.com wrote:
One port build (www/neon29) fails for me on 9.0 (i386, freshly upgraded from
8.2), configure fails with the message: cpp: error trying to exec 'cc1':
execvp: No such file or directory
I tracked in down to the PATH variable passed to
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 01/18/2012 11:46, John Kozubik wrote:
- mark 9 as the _only_ production release
What I've proposed instead is a new major release every 2 1/2 years,
where the new release coincides with the EOL of the oldest production
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:39:31 -0600
Matthew D. Fuller fulle...@over-yonder.net wrote:
Or there's another option, a variant of (1), where we extend the
lifetime of some major release trains, but not all. Every second, or
every third. Then we can have a longer life, without ballooning out
the
John writes:
- EOL 7
- mark 8 as legacy
- mark 9 as the _only_ production release
- release 10.0 in January 2017
Until a few days ago 8 was the latest, shinest release.
So you want to suddenly demote it all the way down to legacy?
I thought the goal was to have releases that can be used for a
The original goal for 5.0 was to completely remove the Giant lock (and
do other cool SMP-related stuff). Eventually it was realized that this
was too big a goal to fully accomplish in 5.0 (albeit too late in the
process) and the goal was changed to do the basic framework for the new
SMP
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Jilles Tjoelker jil...@stack.nl wrote:
[...snip]
On the contrary, our /bin/sh is minimalistic compared to many other
shells used in that role, like bash, pdksh, mksh and ksh93. It (the 9.0
version) has only slightly more features than dash or NetBSD's sh, and
Andriy writes:
And dealing with PRs is not always exciting.
Neither is brushing your teeth or cleaning the kitchen, but most of us
manage to do them at least occasionally. Part of being a grown up.
Instead of looking for a stick to hold over developers to get them
to fix PRs, let's look for
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Dieter BSD
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:58 PM
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Getting PRs fixed (was: Re: ...focus, longevity, and lifecycle)
On 19 January 2012 00:57, Dieter BSD dieter...@engineer.com wrote:
Idea 2: Give it status. Set up a web page with PR fixing stats
name/handle..total PRs fixed...fixed in last 12 months...average fixed/year
Sheldon..150...9072
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Igor Mozolevsky
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Dieter BSD
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Getting PRs fixed (was: Re: ...focus,
-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
hack...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Igor Mozolevsky
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:06 PM
To: Dieter BSD
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Getting PRs fixed (was: Re: ...focus,
On 01/18/2012 06:57 PM, Dieter BSD wrote:
Andriy writes:
And dealing with PRs is not always exciting.
Neither is brushing your teeth or cleaning the kitchen, but most of us
manage to do them at least occasionally. Part of being a grown up.
Instead of looking for a stick to hold over
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:00:44AM -0500, Matthew Story wrote:
Just noticed that tab-completion in /bin/sh has been added in 9.0 (verified
that it is not there in 8.0, dunno if it's there in 8.2, could probably go
digging to figure it out). In addition to the command history via
up:down
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:59:48PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
On 01/18/2012 06:57 PM, Dieter BSD wrote:
Andriy writes:
And dealing with PRs is not always exciting.
Neither is brushing your teeth or cleaning the kitchen, but most of us
manage to do them at least
On 16/01/2012, at 2:34 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 1/13/12 11:00 PM, Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking to upgrade a system running frame relay over a Sangoma A101 card
and WANPIPE.
Sangoma do not support FreeBSD anymore, so I'm looking for alternatives.
What hardware does
On 15/01/2012, at 6:00 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Hi,
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking to upgrade a system running frame relay over a Sangoma A101 card
and WANPIPE.
Sangoma do not support FreeBSD anymore, so I'm looking for alternatives.
What hardware does ng_frame_relay
Idea 1: Fix 'n' PRs, get a tee-shirt, fridge magnet, plush daemon, ...
Idea 2: Give it status. Set up a web page with PR fixing stats
name/handle..total PRs fixed...fixed in last 12 months...average
fixed/year Sheldon..150...9072
Hello,
(This is cross-posted message between current@, stable@ and hackers@; for
eventual discussion, please use hackers@ mailing list.)
I am glad to announce that we've successfully reached the end of Google
Code-In 2011 Contest!
FreeBSD participated first time, and in my personal opinion
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
On 15/01/2012, at 6:00 PM, Roman Kurakin wrote:
Hi,
Jan Mikkelsen wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking to upgrade a system running frame relay over a Sangoma A101 card
and WANPIPE.
Sangoma do not support FreeBSD anymore, so I'm looking for alternatives.
What hardware does
A simple sollution (at least for a start), for backporting
various bugfixes from STABLE to RELEASE.
Currently we have /var/db/pkg 'db' for installed ports,
where an installed port is like /var/db/pkg/portname-1.0
lets provide another one, /var/db/patch, a separated
'repository' that would list
(This is my earlier 'rant' about current situation, it was not
'approved' to the freebsd-hackers ML because I was not
subscribed to it (my bad), possible little too much personal
and emotional, but who we are without emotions, machines.)
This well known 'open secret' FreeBSD problem also hit me
On Jan 18, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
... perhaps what is really called for is breaking out our .0 release
engineering entirely from .x engineering, with freebsd-update being in the
latter.
This is a great idea!
In particular, it would allow more people to be involved.
74 matches
Mail list logo
