Hi committers!
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:44:06AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
>And given that we've already slipped from December 15th, I think you
>can treat this as a pretty hard deadline, to be further slipped only
>grudgingly and in response to clear and dire need.
>
>10 days, folks! M
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Brian Somers writes:
: Also, with a 3c589c, hot plugging is like playing Russian Roulette
: with five of the six chambers full at the moment. Just booting with
: a pccard inserted sometimes crashes the machine. I think most
: peoples view of the current pccard s
> `ep' is seriously wounded for some with 3c589d cards as it isn't getting
> interrupts and only works via the watchdog timer.
Also, with a 3c589c, hot plugging is like playing Russian Roulette
with five of the six chambers full at the moment. Just booting with
a pccard inserted sometimes cras
I think you'd do far better to stop bitching and simply start helping.
The people I've heard yell the very loudest in this discussion are
also the people who:
a) Have not helped Yoshinobu Inoue to any great extent during his
calls for patch testing.
b) Have not volunteered to help with the i
> Doesn't this statement make the entire thread about IPv6 + PC-Card support
> entirely moot? Feature freezes don't mean we can't improve those two areas,
> right? Right? :-)
PC-card, perhaps, but I think IPv6 still needs "improvement" far less
that it needs significant integration. :)
- Jordan
You know, the people reading this list are *not* the typical FreeBSD
users. The fact that releases occur at all is a concession to the
realities of the world - WCCDROM needs to pay it's bills by selling
CDROMs, and their business pressures require new updates on time and
to be as stable as possib
Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
[complaining that people just complain instead of doing the work]
> If you, the users, are not ready to do this, STOP asking those to be
> the folks so described:
>
> ``We the willing have been doing so much with so little for so long
> that we are now qualified to do any
...
>
> I strongly suggest to not release 4.0 till the IPv6 import has been finished.
> Beside the need for IPv6 it would be wrong to ship a release with a half-
> complete implementation.
I expect every person that has made similiar statements here and bore
all the developers with the additiona
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 05:48:09AM -0800, Satoshi Asami wrote:
> Yikes! Seems fifi got out of the cage again. How did she figure out
> the combination for the lock
I'm not sure, but I suspect she factored your private key. Maybe
if you didn't keep putting them in the INDEX commit logs...
< said:
> In light of IPv6 missing
Will you please get it through your skull that IPv6 is NOT MISSING!
Thank you.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Yikes! Seems fifi got out of the cage again. How did she figure out
the combination for the lock
* From: David Greenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* >p.s. pardon the lack of capital letters but my paws can't quite reach
* > the shift key and the alphabet keys at the same time
*
*
> Whatever it is, results in ping times being 1000ms then 10ms then 1000ms
> then 10ms...when it responds.
>
> i.e. it's a mistake to use FreeBSD 3.x with the 3c589d.
FWIW, I'm using the 3c589d with 3.2-STABLE + PAO, and it's working just
fine.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED
In some email I received from Poul-Henning Kamp, sie wrote:
[...]
> In the meantime please enjoy:
>
> NTFS filesytem
>
> Netware support
>
> Jail facility
>
> Tons of new device drivers
>
> Netgraph
>
> etc, etc
>
> Isn't that just that very incomplete li
In freebsd-current [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is already quite a bit of
>IPv6 and IPSec stuff in the tree. Most of the kernel stuff is there (albeit
>seriously lacking documentation). To me this is not *too* critical right
>now. I see the point for t
In some email I received from Warner Losh, sie wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Josef Karthauser writes:
> : My 3c589d works just fine now, along with suspend/resume :) (under 4.0).
>
> The issue with the 3c589d is with its speed. It is falling back to
> the timeout routine to send da
In some email I received from Randy Bush, sie wrote:
>
> > 4.0-RELEASE sounds like it will start becoming available at about the same
> > time as other OS's make new releases *with* IPv6/IPSec. You work it out
> > whether or not FreeBSD will win or lose from those two being there or not
> > ther
On 07-Jan-00 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> It's a feature freeze, sorry. I still expect the loose-ends that are
> in place as of that date to be tied up afterwards.
Doesn't this statement make the entire thread about IPv6 + PC-Card support
entirely moot? Feature freezes don't mean we can't improve
At 4:14 PM -0800 2000/1/6, Randy Bush wrote:
> my point is that we can only wait politely and appreciatively for the kame
> folk to continue their work to a point where it is more fully rounded.
> until then, we should not forget that other features are also driving the
> 4.0 release train.
-On [2107 00:01], Poul-Henning Kamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Ames writes:
>
>>> On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
>>> need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
>>> Delaying *them*
Mike Smith wrote:
>
> > In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
> > >
> > > *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> > > wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> > > will use it than currently do anyway. Any reas
>> Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
>
>I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
>shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
>_completely_ stupid?
>
>Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
>moron? What makes
> * From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * How do you think things "get included" in the OS? Do you think one
> * just moves the KAME bits into a directory next to /usr/src, goes away
> * for 24 hours to let them bits do their thing, and then comes back to
> * find that nature has do
> genius% ping6
> usage: ping6 [-dfnqRrvwW] [-a [alsg]] [-b sockbufsiz] [-c count] [-I interface]
> [-i wait] [-l preload] [-p pattern] [-s packetsize]
> [-h hoplimit] host [hosts...]
There are suggestions that ping6 should be integrated into
ping for users could natur
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter Jeremy writes:
: Maybe I misunderstood Jordan's original announcement, but this was
: also a surprise for me. Jordan originally stated that there'd be a
: feature freeze from 15th December 1999. I got the impression that
: this was going to be in effect for s
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:37:59PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>
> Yes. As a matter of fact, I have.
>
> So, where is the email which specifically states the reasons why it will not
> be integrated? I apparently missed something in this flurry of email.
I don't know if you realise, I most
> Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
_completely_ stupid?
Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
moron? What makes you thin
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:27:27PM -0800, fifi - the hamster - asami wrote:
> dear mr. hubbard,
> please do not insult hamsters. it doesn't work that way for hamsters
> either. we are fully aware of our surroundings and plan our lives
> accordingly. in fact, satoshi is out picking oranges
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 07:04:16PM -0500, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -wk, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -hm
^^^
Damnit! I've asked for some features in GCC, GNU grep, and GNU diff. I
want them *NOW* in time for 4.0-RELEASE. So where the fsck are t
> > Do you _always_ assume that anyone other than yourself is a complete
> > moron?
>
> Where did this and all that other stuff come from?
You have to ask this?
> > What makes you think that we don't want this code integrated, or
> > that we don't care about it? Have you bothered to actually
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:17:52PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > > Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
> >
> > Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
>
> State specifically what is needed. Now. Thank you.
>
> Part of the lack of help may be the result of people clueles
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:32:21PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
> > Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
>
> I don't know quite what makes you think that we came down in the last
> shower of rain, but has it ever occurred to you that we're not
> _completely_ stupid?
Sure it has. I think I'm
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:17:52PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
>
> Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
State specifically what is needed. Now. Thank you.
Part of the lack of help may be the result of people clueless as to where to
* From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* How do you think things "get included" in the OS? Do you think one
* just moves the KAME bits into a directory next to /usr/src, goes away
* for 24 hours to let them bits do their thing, and then comes back to
* find that nature has done the
> Get IPv6 into the tree. Now. Thank you.
Start helping and stop asking. Now. Thank you.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
[Moved to just -current; this doesn't need to keep getting cross-posted]
> It's not like were moving from v4 to v6. Were just asking that it
> be included in the OS. It should be available to researchers using
> 4.0-RELEASE. That's all im saying. There is no reason to ask for resources
> or anyth
>>> time as other OS's make new releases *with* IPv6/IPSec. You work it out
>>> whether or not FreeBSD will win or lose from those two being there or not
>>> there.
>> what if the choice is
>> o release at the same time with lots-o-features but not all of v6
>> o release _considerably later_
It's a feature freeze, sorry. I still expect the loose-ends that are
in place as of that date to be tied up afterwards.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> fairings
>
I almost fell off my chair laughing..
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 06:26:16PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> with it being in 4.1 or later. But if it's going to hurt FreeBSD in
> research labs, and universities who move to Linux instead or Solaris
> because they have a shipping v6 release regardless of how well it works
> that will hurt
Yes, this is a very good point. Jordan, which is it?
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2000-Jan-07 01:43:09 +1100, Steve Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > _FEATURE_ freeze is January 15th.
>
> Not quite - Jordan specifically stated _CODE_ freeze (see the Subject:).
>
> Maybe I
> FreeBSD releases. So thats moot. The point im trying to make is regardless
> of the state IPv6 is in, leaving it out of a major release is a no no IMO.
If you believe this is really an issue, then you should be scolding the
KAME folks and not the rest of us. They knew when the deadlines were,
> 4.0-RELEASE sounds like it will start becoming available at about the same
> time as other OS's make new releases *with* IPv6/IPSec. You work it out
> whether or not FreeBSD will win or lose from those two being there or not
> there.
what if the choice is
o release at the same time with lots
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> And when will IPv6 fully be in 4-CURRENT?
> Besides offering two cents what else can you offer to make this happen?
> Time? More money?
>
> People here aren't backing their opinions by tell us *how* their to make
> their opinions happen.
I cant do any
On 2000-Jan-07 01:43:09 +1100, Steve Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> _FEATURE_ freeze is January 15th.
Not quite - Jordan specifically stated _CODE_ freeze (see the Subject:).
Maybe I misunderstood Jordan's original announcement, but this was
also a surprise for me. Jordan originally stated t
> In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
> >
> > *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> > wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> > will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to release and ship a
>
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 03:02:32PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would like to agree with darren on this one. And think IPv6 should go
> into 4.0 even if the date needs to be pushed back. It is a major release
> and adding v6 is a major change. Thats just my 2 cents anyway.
And when will
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Josef Karthauser writes:
: My 3c589d works just fine now, along with suspend/resume :) (under 4.0).
The issue with the 3c589d is with its speed. It is falling back to
the timeout routine to send data rather than getting an interrupt when
the tx has happened (or so
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Frank Mayhar writes:
: On the _other_ other hand (:-), having pccard ep0 broken in 4.0-RELEASE is a
: mistake, IMHO. At the very _least_, the 589D's should work, and it would be
: Really Nice if the 574BTs worked, too. Of course, no one should expect full
: cardbus
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> 10 days, folks! Make 'em count.. :)
>
If people would stop sending this to -committers, I will actually have
some time left in which to do some work :-)
Better still, stop it completely.
thanks,
--
Marcel Moolenaarmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
Patrick Bihan-Faou wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is already quite a bit of
> IPv6 and IPSec stuff in the tree. Most of the kernel stuff is there (albeit
> seriously lacking documentation). To me this is not *too* critical right
> now. I see the point for the research co
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Josef Karthauser wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:00:46AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
> >
> > btw, I completely agree with the need to have good pccard/pcmcia support.
> > For the first time there was a real reason for me to ditch FreeBSD on an
> > Intel platform box (my l
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:14:19PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[..]
> FreeBSD-4.0 because now the time is right!
What's the rush?
If we believe that IPv6 is a noteable milestone, then what better time to
introduce it and get a "splash" with it than the ".0" major release. Do you
really thin
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 08:00:46AM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
>
> btw, I completely agree with the need to have good pccard/pcmcia support.
> For the first time there was a real reason for me to ditch FreeBSD on an
> Intel platform box (my laptop) and go with NetBSD where my 3c589d works
> just fi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Ames writes:
>> On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
>> need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
>> Delaying *them* is a big mistake.
>
>*shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RE
> In some email I received from Matthew Dillon, sie wrote:
> [...]
> > We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
> > but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
> > is not too late for these babies.
> [...]
>
> Well, let me p
In some email I received from Matthew Dillon, sie wrote:
[...]
> We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
> but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
> is not too late for these babies.
[...]
Well, let me put it this way.
On Fri, 7 Jan 100, Darren Reed wrote:
> In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
> >
> > *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> > wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> > will use it than currently do anyway.
In some email I received from Steve Ames, sie wrote:
>
> *shudder* I really, really dislike the idea of -RELEASE actually being a
> wide beta so that some code can get a workout. LAbel it beta and more people
> will use it than currently do anyway. Any reason not to release and ship a
> 4.0-beta?
(Note: trimmed to just the -current list.)
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> On the other hand, there are *plenty* of things already in 4.0 that really
> need to get out there and get a workout by a larger audience.
> Delaying *them* is a big mistake.
On the _other_ other hand (:-), having p
> We are not going to repeat the 3.0 mess. IPV6 and IPSEC are important,
> but not important enough to delay the already-delayed 4.0 release. 4.1
> is not too late for these babies.
True... 4.1 is not too late. However a good part of IPv6 and IPSEC are
already present and the prim
:> For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
:> is a mistake. Why ? Because in < 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
:> released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a big enough
:> change to signify a major release number change). If that doesn't
:> happen, then FreeB
On Thu, 6 Jan 100, Darren Reed wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
> is a mistake. Why ? Because in < 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
> released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a big enough
> change to signify a major release number change). I
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 10:24:21AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > There are many people who use freebsd in the real world that have been counti
> ng
> > on 4.0 including support for ipsec and ipv6, ipsec more importantly. We would
> > be willing to wait an additional couple of months for this
> There are many people who use freebsd in the real world that have been counti
ng
> on 4.0 including support for ipsec and ipv6, ipsec more importantly. We would
> be willing to wait an additional couple of months for this functionality, ple
Sadly, you've picked a particular bit of technology th
> My question is not how much time the developers are being given -- the
> *real* question is how much time the developers will give.
Thank you for saying this. If developers were constant-output
devices, we wouldn't need code freezes to motivate them into moving at
all. :-)
- Jordan
To Unsub
In message <006001bf586a$409b4b00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Patrick Bihan-Faou"
writes:
: Look at the 3.x history: we just got some major features in the late 3.x
: (netgraph in 3.4) this does not mean that 3.0 was a bad release.
Actually, 3.0 was a bad release, support for which was dropped before
su
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alex writes:
: - Better laptop (PC card) support, possibly Cardbus (Warner Losh)
Won't happen by Jan 15th unless someone my boss comes into my office
today and tells me to work on nothing else except pccard/cardbus for
the next 9 days. The old pccard code will be i
Hi,
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that there is already quite a bit of
IPv6 and IPSec stuff in the tree. Most of the kernel stuff is there (albeit
seriously lacking documentation). To me this is not *too* critical right
now. I see the point for the research community though.
Also, regardi
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 03:49:45PM +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:55:06PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > More releases more often are better than indefinitely holding up
> > releases waiting for just that one last thing to be finished.
>
> Second that. And to follow
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:45:11AM -0500, Steve Ames wrote:
>
> My question is how much time are developers/testers being given between
> feature freeze (9 days from now) and release to get all code working
> and stable?
My question is not how much time the developers are being given -- the
*rea
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:39:01PM +, Alex wrote:
> I vote for:
>
> - IPv6 and the tools to go with it (Yoshinobu Inoue)
> - Better laptop (PC card) support, possibly Cardbus (Warner Losh)
> - Improved soundcard support: right now newpcm is broken in a number of
> ways (Cameron Grant), possib
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> : I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
> : functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
> : now) would be a bad idea.
>
> The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eivind Eklund writes:
: On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
: > The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device is no longer
: > supported as a pccard. The sn device has been added. The YE_DATA
: > floppy device isn't supported, bu
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 09:09:22AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eivind Eklund writes:
> : I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
> : functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
> : now) would be a bad idea.
>
> Th
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Eivind Eklund writes:
: I believe putting down RELENG_4 without having a finished IPv6 and
: functional laptop support (I'm not sure what state this is in right
: now) would be a bad idea.
The laptop support is approx that of 3.x. The fe device is no longer
suppo
On 06-Jan-00 Andreas Klemm wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:55:06PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
>> More releases more often are better than indefinitely holding up
>> releases waiting for just that one last thing to be finished.
>
> Second that. And to follow on that...
> FreeBSD 4.0 wil
> More releases more often are better than indefinitely holding up
> releases waiting for just that one last thing to be finished.
I think a recent thread on -STABLE indicates that the majority
of end users seem to believe that -RELEASE means STABLE and
should be fully operational not a wi
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 12:55:06PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> More releases more often are better than indefinitely holding up
> releases waiting for just that one last thing to be finished.
Second that. And to follow on that...
FreeBSD 4.0 will become the new STABLE.
So 4.0 should becom
> I agree. Why rush 4.0-RELEASE out the door if it's "not there yet"? One
> possibility is to make our 4.0-current something like 3.9-RELEASE, and
> when everything has been added, release 4.0-RELEASE. 3.9-RELEASE would be
> a lot like 4.0-REL, only with some missing parts (such as IPV6 you jus
> I think we should layout a plan of everything that everyone is working
> on
> and try find a natural inflection point. I reallu thing that IPV6 is too
> important to make a release with it "half" implemented.
What would be nice is a table of features versus release in
which they appear. Somet
On Thu, 6 Jan 100, Darren Reed wrote:
> For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
> is a mistake. Why ? Because in < 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
> released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a big enough
> change to signify a major release number change). If
Eivind Eklund wrote:
> If somebody is up to organizing it, it would be nice to have an
> overview of what everybody would like to put in before we decide to
> put down a branch. However, given how much variance most of us has in
> how much effort (or at least results) we're able to push into Fre
At 5:25 AM -0500 2000/1/6, Donn Miller wrote:
> I agree. Why rush 4.0-RELEASE out the door if it's "not there yet"? One
> possibility is to make our 4.0-current something like 3.9-RELEASE, and
> when everything has been added, release 4.0-RELEASE.
No, I disagree. There's too much i
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 02:14:04AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> Darren Reed wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
> > is a mistake. Why ? Because in < 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
> > released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 02:32:47AM -0800, Amancio Hasty wrote:
>
> Curious , what is elischer.org ? 8)
>
According to www.elischer.org, this is the temporary home page
for the Elischer family's internet enterprises and Family stuff.
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the
[EMAIL PR
Curious , what is elischer.org ? 8)
--
Amancio Hasty
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I agree with this..
> I think that 4.0 is clsoe but it's just not there yet.
> I think it needs IPV6 to have reached a better milestone, and certainly
> the stuff that warner is doing (and others) needs to be a little
> further down the track.
I agre
Darren Reed wrote:
>
>
> For what it's worth, I think releasing 4.0 *without* IPv6 support
> is a mistake. Why ? Because in < 12 months FreeBSD 5.0 will be
> released *with* IPv6 support (I'd count IPv6 as being a big enough
> change to signify a major release number change). If that doesn't
>
> Personally, I think the timeline laid down - 25(?) days from now
> until 4.0 release is too aggressive. Given that the announcement
> (to me) seemed to be rather autocratic and possibly driven by
> marketting factors ("we need 4.0 out now regardless" ?) than by
> the general stability and ma
In some email I received from Yoshinobu Inoue, sie wrote:
>
> > Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> > the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> > some applications.
> >
> > louie
>
> As an information from a person doi
:This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
:
:--ms7B55930FA2AAFE9EE4D45CA1
:Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
:Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
:
:
:Stupid question: will the latest PAO stuff be integrated with 4.0?
:
:
:-dpg
:--ms7B55930FA2AAFE9EE
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dennis Glatting writes:
: Stupid question: will the latest PAO stuff be integrated with 4.0?
Not as such no. Like 3.x before, most of the PAO bits have been
merged, but much still remains in PAO that hasn't been integrated.
There will likely be a PAO4 while we trna
> Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> some applications.
>
> louie
As an information from a person doing merging work,
-Kernel part is almost done(tcp patch is under review an
Stupid question: will the latest PAO stuff be integrated with 4.0?
-dpg
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
> Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
> >
> > Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> > the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> > some applications.
>
> IPv6 is a very complex area and I believe that a -RELEASE should come with
> bot
What kind of an Alpha would you like?
Mike
Michael Waite
Global Partnering Solutions, Marlboro Center
Compaq Computer Corporation
TEL: (508)467-2289
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> From: Jordan K. Hubbard[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 09:39:30PM +0100, Kai Voigt wrote:
> > Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> > the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> > some applications.
>
> IPv6 is a very complex area and I believe that a -RE
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> And given that we've already slipped from December 15th, I think you
> can treat this as a pretty hard deadline, to be further slipped only
> grudgingly and in response to clear and dire need.
>
> 10 days, folks! Make 'em count.. :)
>
I don't s
Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>
> Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> some applications.
IPv6 is a very complex area and I believe that a -RELEASE should come with
both a clean IPv6 s
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 03:26:00PM -0500, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
>
> Will we try to include the remaining KAME IPv6 integration into 4.0 before
> the freeze? It would be nice to have 4.0 with a functioning IPv6 stack and
> some applications.
I second that desire.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christian
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
