Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 06:21:39PM -0700, David Kirchner wrote:
On 5/3/06, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
Marty
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
