On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 01:36:21AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > Erik Trulsson wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:05:05PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: >>> On 10/5/07, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:49:09PM +0000, Jack F Vogel wrote: .. >>>>> Log: >>>>> MFC of Intel driver version 6.6.6 .. >>>> Am I right in thinking that this code is actually newer than the >>>> code in -CURRENT (which seems to be version 6.5.3) ? If this is >>>> indeed the case, then shouldn't this code have gone into -CURRENT >>>> first? >>> >>> Yes, it is newer, the reason for this is the delta between what >>> CURRENT has and this is small, and I did not want to impact CURRENT >>> while its frozen getting ready for release. .. >>> I would actually have liked to update BOTH CURRENT and STABLE with >>> this but I was holding off on CURRENT because there are no critical >>> bug fixes it doesnt have, and its about to be made into a release. >> >> As I understand it the policy of FreeBSD is that new stuff *always* >> should go into -CURRENT first before it is allowed to go into any >> -STABLE branch. .. > What do you expect to accomplish by lecturing a vendor who has shown > very good faith over the years in supporting FreeBSD? Maybe we should > tell Intel to piss off since you obviously know how to support their > hardware much better than they do.
Scott, I think you're being overly harsh. Erik was not questioning how this vendor and active FreeBSD committer was supporting their hardware. It was a question about FreeBSD practices. I think it is a fair question - and one that shows how badly our current situation of having HEAD tree frozen for an overly extended amount of time is putting a real crimp on our practices. -- David _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"