On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:25:59PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > A> [snip] > A> > A> I think Mike's approach is good - it makes it easy to MFC to 10.2 > A> since there's extended lifecycle stuff to do there - and then we can > A> plan out how do the "betterer" fix after it's landed and churned > A> things. > > ... and we will be ought to support the "betterer" fix along with > the "not so betterer" for a very long time. > > The rock on which we split in this argument is that some developers > write their code for stable/x and then forward-port it to head, > focused on quality of result for stable/x; while other developers > do the opposite: write code to head, then consider or not consider > merging it stable/x. > > I think this is oversimplified. In my 10 years in this role at Intel I've had cases when, in response to a customer issue, I had to work from an existing code base to solve a problem, or add support for a new feature. But then there are other times when I've been working on a new driver, and its been totally developed from HEAD. It depends on what's right for the circumstance, but as I said, on this issue we have real product/customer needs that are short term, and the competition (Linux and Windows) is prepared to handle the new media today, I think its in FreeBSD's interest to address this ASAP. Jack _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
