Yes, at least some of this stuff is coming to light because we're aggressively
tracking top-of-tree in both 9 and 10. Which is good. But highly annoying at
times. But good in the long run. It means that 9.2 won't suck, and 10.0 won't
suck. =-)
Scott
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> No, we should upgrade the cluster, watch it fail, and then let people
> experience their own handiwork.
>
> Sheesh. :(
>
>
>
> -adrian
>
>
> On 9 August 2013 14:19, Peter Wemm <pe...@wemm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> ... ?
>>>
>>> Can we please back it all out and then re-test attilio's patch with
>>> alan's fix, before committing it all again?
>>>
>>> I kinda have a vested interest at ${WORK} to be able to test -10 HEAD
>>> right now for all these performance investigations and fixes that need
>>> to happen for us; having the VM change and break _right now_ is going
>>> to actually cause us pain.
>>
>> The current state of HEAD also kinda rules out refreshing freebsd.org
>> machines this week too.
>>
>> --
>> Peter Wemm - pe...@wemm.org; pe...@freebsd.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
>> UTF-8: for when a ' just won\342\200\231t do.
>> <brueffer> ZFS must be the bacon of file systems. "everything's better with
>> ZFS"
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
