Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Mike Jakubik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? Apparently, yes. No. 3.6.1 has the same bug, and 3.7 isn't out yet. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
David Rhodus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? Umm, yeah, so after today are we going to get a new import into RELENG_4 before 4.9 is pushed out the door ? No, OpenSSH 3.7 will not be ready in time for 4.9. Both -CURRENT and -STABLE have already been patched, BTW, so you needn't worry. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:57:58 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike Jakubik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? Apparently, yes. No. 3.6.1 has the same bug, and 3.7 isn't out yet. http://www.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-announce/2003-September/64.html Cheers, Mezz DES -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Jeremy Messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:57:58 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. 3.6.1 has the same bug, and 3.7 isn't out yet. http://www.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-announce/2003-September/64.html We use OpenSSH-portable, which lags a little behind. 3.7.1p1 seems to have been released late last evening, but it hasn't hit the mirrors yet. In any case, 3.7.1p1 will not hit -STABLE until it has spent at least a month in -CURRENT. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, 23:48-0600, Scott Long wrote: All, I'd like to give a status report for 4.x and 5.x for the developers and users who didn't attend the DevSummit this past weekend. 4.9: The 4.9 release is likely going to be pushed back for a few weeks while the recent instability reports are tracked down. The target goal is two weeks, but hopefully things can be resolved before then. The problems appear to stem from the recent PAE import. The consensus reached at the DevSummit is that PAE is a critical feature for 4.x and that removing it isn't desirable unless the problems persist. We encourage anyone to help with this. PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. I believe stability was a critical feature of stable branch. Not PAE or anything alse. That is why I think we have to back out all that PAE code from stable. [5.x stuff] -- Maxim Konovalov, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to find and fix. Bruce ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 06:11 AM, Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Perhaps someone new is needed then to manage the import of OpenSSH if that is the case, if it is re@ or other decision member's of FreeBSD wouldn't allow it, then perhaps its time to restructure that part I'm not sure what the case is as other parts of been MFC'd lately without very much testing if any, noting the panic's that have been accruing on users running stable for the past 8 months. Should that just be taken as a sign of EoL for RELENG_4 ? I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to find and fix. Right the fix(es) should be trivial though incredibly hard to track down. Even more so that FreeBSD no long has anyone that is qualified to do any real work on the VM system. It is ridicules that re@ has allowed PAE to stay in the STABLE branch for still long with the amount of instability that it has created. I know its just uncovering bugs in the system that have always been present. Now we have many many kernel stack trace's and should be able to track it down over the next week months. For now though, the PAE commit should be removed from the RELENG_4 tree. Anything else should be not excepted by the FreeBSD community. -DR ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:43:00AM -0400, David Rhodus wrote: Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Merging new versions of software into the security branches is not what I really want to do. In general, I'll just backport the fix. In the past, we *have* merged new versions, but in hindsight this was usually a mistake. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to find and fix. Bruce Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability. Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex. In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the decision must be made on keeping or tossing PAE. Since PAE is a *highly* sought after feature, it would be doing a disservice to our user base to remove it without putting in some effort to fix it. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: :Bruce Evans wrote: : On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: : : :PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It :affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several :SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security :branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security :fixes. : : : I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't : notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having : some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most : of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names : of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE : case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE : case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to : find and fix. : : Bruce : : :Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the :third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability. :Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex. :In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the decision :must be made on keeping or tossing PAE. Since PAE is a *highly* :sought after feature, it would be doing a disservice to our user base :to remove it without putting in some effort to fix it. : I fully agree with the last statement here. One reason my current employer left FreeBSD 4.x and went to linux for our embedded system was due to the lack of PAE support. We were planning to implement the extensions ourself, but, unfortunately, we in engineering were affected by time and money issues. Scott, keep up the good work. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew R. Reiter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
David Rhodus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Scott Long wrote: Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to find and fix. Bruce Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability. Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex. In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the decision must be made on keeping or tossing PAE. Since PAE is a *highly* sought after feature, it would be doing a disservice to our user base to remove it without putting in some effort to fix it. If someone who was involved in this would publish the date on which that last commit was made, people who are experiencing problems, but wish to stay as close to -STABLE as possible can use cvsup to revert their trees to a date immediately prior to the commit. This will solve both problems for now: i.e. the problem of users wanting the bugfixes/new features of -STABLE will have a target they can cvsup to that is reliable, while the developers can continue to pursue their goal of having PAE in 4.9. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Bill Moran wrote: Scott Long wrote: Bruce Evans wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Maxim Konovalov wrote: PAE MFC brought an incredible instability to stable branch. It affects 100% of our user community especially when we issued several SAs since PAE commit. They often can't switch to RELENG_4_x security branches because even RELENG_4_8 misses several critical non-security fixes. I merged PAE into my version of -current a bit at a time and didn't notice any problems (with PAE not actually configured) despite having some large logical inconsistencies from not having all of it. Most of the global changes had no effect since they just changed the names of some typedefs without changing the underlying types in the !PAE case. So I suspect that any instabilities in RELENG_4 in the !PAE case are indirectly related to PAE and/or localized and thus easy to find and fix. Bruce Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability. Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex. In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the decision must be made on keeping or tossing PAE. Since PAE is a *highly* sought after feature, it would be doing a disservice to our user base to remove it without putting in some effort to fix it. If someone who was involved in this would publish the date on which that last commit was made, people who are experiencing problems, but wish to stay as close to -STABLE as possible can use cvsup to revert their trees to a date immediately prior to the commit. This will solve both problems for now: i.e. the problem of users wanting the bugfixes/new features of -STABLE will have a target they can cvsup to that is reliable, while the developers can continue to pursue their goal of having PAE in 4.9. Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Release Engineering Status Report
Apparently, yes. http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/16/1327248.shtml?tid=126tid=172 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dag-Erling Smørgrav Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:54 AM To: David Rhodus Cc: Maxim Konovalov; Scott Long; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Release Engineering Status Report David Rhodus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? Scott I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related problems, so there is no need for a reversion. Since that time, I've seen three panics posted: 1. Some netinet/ related panic which I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I haven't any followup reports from the poster. 2. Maxim's buildworld -j64 memory kmap entry exhaustion panic, which can be fixed by increasing the number of kmap entries. (Tor has a patch for this, I will probably commit it soon.) 3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. (There's also a small problem with if_xl on pentium-1 machines, but since it's my fault and I'm waiting on test results from a guy, we won't talk about it.) (Hey, anyone have a pentium-200 and a 3com 905B card? Contact me, further testing can't hurt.) So, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining problems related to PAE; I believe that most people are venting frustration that built up between August 9th and 30th. Mike Silby Silbersack ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. Is this a firewall induced panic? -sc -- Sean Chittenden ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Mike Silbersack wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? Scott I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related problems, so there is no need for a reversion. Since that time, I've seen three panics posted: 1. Some netinet/ related panic which I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I haven't any followup reports from the poster. 2. Maxim's buildworld -j64 memory kmap entry exhaustion panic, which can be fixed by increasing the number of kmap entries. (Tor has a patch for this, I will probably commit it soon.) 3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. (There's also a small problem with if_xl on pentium-1 machines, but since it's my fault and I'm waiting on test results from a guy, we won't talk about it.) (Hey, anyone have a pentium-200 and a 3com 905B card? Contact me, further testing can't hurt.) So, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining problems related to PAE; I believe that most people are venting frustration that built up between August 9th and 30th. Mike Silby Silbersack Ok, thanks for the update. Since it is 17 days after Aug 30 and people are still upset, the status was very unclear to the Release Engineering Team. So I guess we ened to solicit updates from the people who were directly experiencing problems, and ask for everyone else to test it as much as possible. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 12:16:30PM -0400, Mike Jakubik typed: Apparently, yes. http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/16/1327248.shtml?tid=126tid=172 Fortunately, there's allready a patch in the source tree: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/crypto/openssh/buffer.c.diff?r1=1.1.1.6r2=1.1.1.7f=h ruben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:54 AM To: David Rhodus Cc: Maxim Konovalov; Scott Long; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Release Engineering Status Report David Rhodus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? DES -- Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
Scott Long wrote: Agreed. PAE was merged into -stable in three steps. Backing out the third step and leaving the first two steps removes the instability. Unfortunately, it was the third step that also was the most complex. In any case, we have 2 weeks to find the resolution before the decision must be made on keeping or tossing PAE. Since PAE is a *highly* sought after feature, it would be doing a disservice to our user base to remove it without putting in some effort to fix it. Not to be rude or anything, so please don't take it that way... Exactly why is PAE ...a *highly* sought after feature...? It's not like it increases the KVA space for the kernel itself, or UVA space for individual processes. I could maybe understand if processes were no longer mapped into KVA on trap/system call entry, since that would cause the UVA and KVA to both go to the full 4G size, at some additional copying cost, which is (relatively) low on Intel, for the benefit of a larger virtual address space that would let you map more kernel data and/or run larger application working sets for things like databases. But as it is, it's basically nothing more than L3 cache, which has always been seen as being of dubious benefit (otherwise all machines would come with L3 caches). -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:30:50AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: Mike Silbersack wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Scott Long wrote: Patches have been floated on the mailing list that revert PAE in its various stages. Maybe those need to be brought back up. Silby? Tor? Scott I believe that Tor's commit on August 30th resolved the PAE-related problems, so there is no need for a reversion. Since that time, I've seen three panics posted: 1. Some netinet/ related panic which I couldn't make heads or tails of, and I haven't any followup reports from the poster. 2. Maxim's buildworld -j64 memory kmap entry exhaustion panic, which can be fixed by increasing the number of kmap entries. (Tor has a patch for this, I will probably commit it soon.) 3. A panic caused by sending 64K-1 ping packets, which I can't reproduce. (There's also a small problem with if_xl on pentium-1 machines, but since it's my fault and I'm waiting on test results from a guy, we won't talk about it.) (Hey, anyone have a pentium-200 and a 3com 905B card? Contact me, further testing can't hurt.) So, as far as I can tell, there are no remaining problems related to PAE; I believe that most people are venting frustration that built up between August 9th and 30th. Mike Silby Silbersack Ok, thanks for the update. Since it is 17 days after Aug 30 and people are still upset, the status was very unclear to the Release Engineering Team. So I guess we ened to solicit updates from the people who were directly experiencing problems, and ask for everyone else to test it as much as possible. I was one the people who were experiencing stability problems after the PAE commit. I had several unexpected panics and could provoke panics nearly at will on systems that had previously been rock-stable. After the Aug 30 commit I have not had any panics at all and I have not experienced any other stability problems either since then. In my personal experience RELENG_4 is currently quite stable (not counting any commits made during the last 48 hours or so since I have not yet tested any of those), but it is of course possible that other people have run into bugs in components of the kernel that I don't use. (Note: I do not have PAE enabled in the kernel. I have no idea what the situation is for those who actually have enabled PAE, but any problems that may exist there is non-critical IMO since they would not affect any pre-existing configurations.) -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: David Rhodus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Right, say if still the OpenSSH did or still comes out to be real. Ops, now thats right, we don't have 3.6.1 in STABLE, why ? It was released on April 1, does that not give one enough time to merge this in ? Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? Umm, yeah, so after today are we going to get a new import into RELENG_4 before 4.9 is pushed out the door ? -DR ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Release Engineering Status Report
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 09:47:44PM -0400, David Rhodus wrote: On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 11:54 AM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Is there a specific problem with OpenSSH 3.5 which requires an update to 3.6.1? Or do you just want me to update it to make the numbers look pretty on your screen? Umm, yeah, so after today are we going to get a new import into RELENG_4 before 4.9 is pushed out the door ? Hell no. :-) Frankly, OpenSSH 3.7.x will require quite a bit of testing and integration before it is even fit for -CURRENT. Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine . NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Release Engineering Status Report
All, I'd like to give a status report for 4.x and 5.x for the developers and users who didn't attend the DevSummit this past weekend. 4.9: The 4.9 release is likely going to be pushed back for a few weeks while the recent instability reports are tracked down. The target goal is two weeks, but hopefully things can be resolved before then. The problems appear to stem from the recent PAE import. The consensus reached at the DevSummit is that PAE is a critical feature for 4.x and that removing it isn't desirable unless the problems persist. We encourage anyone to help with this. 5.x: The 5-stable roadmap document received a major overhaul yesterday. I encourage everyone to take a look at it at http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/5-roadmap/index.html. Among the highlights, KSE is progressing extremely well and is no longer a major source of concern for 5-stable. Stability is also at a very good level. However, while performance has improved in some areas, it is not at the level that we want it to be. Since improving performance will likely involve changing some API's and adding short-term risk to stability, it's looking like the 5-stable branch will be delayed until 5.3. 5.2 will be released in late Nov/early Dec and will feature the vastly improved KSE, partially-improved network performance, optional dynamically-linked root filesystem, and many stability fixes, along with numerous new features. I thank all of the developers, contributors, and users for the highly productive summer and ask that that enthusiasm continue as we push towards 5.2 and 5.3. Scott The Release Engineering Team ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
