Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-18 Thread Stephen Clark

Oliver Fromme wrote:


Michael Abbott wrote:
> Roland Smith wrote:
> > Martin Nilsson wrote:
> > > Hans Lambermont wrote:
> > > .. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead
> > 
> > That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the

> > difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.
> 
> Let me second that.  I hadn't realised that STABLE==RELENG_n (where n is 
> the current version number) until very recently, and I've seen the "STABLE 
> isn't stable" thing crop up over and over again over the last few years, 
> both on mailing lists and IRC.


Actually, FreeBSD has three types of branches:

- current a.k.a. HEAD
- X-stable a.k.a. RELENG_X
- X.Y security branch a.k.a. RELENG_X_Y

I think it would be better to rename the 2nd one "RELENG"
(instead of "STABLE"), because that's exactly what it is:
the release-engineering branch from which the releases are
derived.

The term "STABLE" would be much better suitable for the
3rd type of branches which are currently called "security
branches".  Thus we would have:

- current
- releng
- stable

Then the names match exactly what the branches are:
"current" is the current head of experimental development,
"releng" is the release engineering branch, and "stable"
is the stable branch for people who want to track only
security fixes and the most critical stuff.

Such appropriate naming would certainly prevent a lot of
confusion.

Best regards
  Oliver

 


I agree!

My $.02
Steve

--

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)


"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)




___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-18 Thread Dave Horsfall
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Oliver Fromme wrote:

[...]

> Then the names match exactly what the branches are: "current" is the 
> current head of experimental development, "releng" is the release 
> engineering branch, and "stable" is the stable branch for people who 
> want to track only security fixes and the most critical stuff.

Which is pretty well what OpenLDAP does; over there, HEAD is bleeding 
edge, RELEASE is the latest version, and STABLE is, well, stable as 
understood by most humans...

See http://www.openldap.org/software/download/

-- Dave
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-18 Thread Oliver Fromme
Michael Abbott wrote:
 > Roland Smith wrote:
 > > Martin Nilsson wrote:
 > > > Hans Lambermont wrote:
 > > > .. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead
 > > 
 > > That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the
 > > difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.
 > 
 > Let me second that.  I hadn't realised that STABLE==RELENG_n (where n is 
 > the current version number) until very recently, and I've seen the "STABLE 
 > isn't stable" thing crop up over and over again over the last few years, 
 > both on mailing lists and IRC.

Actually, FreeBSD has three types of branches:

 - current a.k.a. HEAD
 - X-stable a.k.a. RELENG_X
 - X.Y security branch a.k.a. RELENG_X_Y

I think it would be better to rename the 2nd one "RELENG"
(instead of "STABLE"), because that's exactly what it is:
the release-engineering branch from which the releases are
derived.

The term "STABLE" would be much better suitable for the
3rd type of branches which are currently called "security
branches".  Thus we would have:

 - current
 - releng
 - stable

Then the names match exactly what the branches are:
"current" is the current head of experimental development,
"releng" is the release engineering branch, and "stable"
is the stable branch for people who want to track only
security fixes and the most critical stuff.

Such appropriate naming would certainly prevent a lot of
confusion.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"The last good thing written in C was
Franz Schubert's Symphony number 9."
-- Erwin Dieterich
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: arrrrgh! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's gmirror code?!

2006-09-17 Thread Jo Rhett
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 11:39:55AM +0200, Daniel Gerzo wrote:
> Your Windows must be really badly broken, because my Windows XP
> spontaneously rebooted only once in those many years I have been using
> it. In my opinion, XP is pretty decent system.
 
Your standards are pretty low.  I've got freebsd/solaris systems with
uptimes nearing 6 years.  I've *NEVER* had a spontaneous reboot from either
operation system.  If I did, I'd spent hours in the back hammering down
exactly why.

I don't run either Linux or Windows for exactly the reasons you mention,
except as gaming computers that I wipe/rebuild on a regular basis.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek
SVcolo : Silicon Valley Colocation
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re[2]: arrrrgh! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's gmirror code?!

2006-09-17 Thread Daniel Gerzo
Hello Alban,

Friday, September 15, 2006, 9:44:07 AM, you wrote:

> On Sep 15, 2006, at 24:34, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:
 Hahahahaha... That's ironic...
>>>
>>> That wasn't meant to be ironic. Years of experience and  
>>> observations of development lead to this conclusion.
>>
>> RIght. All i can say, though, is that someone that doesn't know any  
>> better would probably not think "Oh! That means that upgrades are  
>> possible between releases, and not that my system will actually  
>> run, or anything!"
>> It just seems it'd be quite a cause of confusion.

> So, actually Microsoft may be correctly claiming that WindowsXP is  
> more stable than Linux. That it spontaneously reboots as soon as I  
> bore it isn't related at all...

Your Windows must be really badly broken, because my Windows XP
spontaneously rebooted only once in those many years I have been using
it. In my opinion, XP is pretty decent system.

-- 
Best regards,
 Danielmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-16 Thread Wayne Sierke
On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 02:09 +0200, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
> On 15/09/2006 01:37, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> > On Friday 15 September 2006 01:15, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >> Anyone who is confused but doesn't attempt to enlighten themselves by
> >> reading the provided documentation deserves to stay confused :)
> > 
> > What if they're unaware of their own confusion?
> 
> I guess they get what they deserves ;)
> 
> Is there a be better source of enlightenment than a handbook?
> To quote[1]:
> 
> -->%
> 21.2.2.1 What Is FreeBSD-STABLE?
> 
> FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are
> made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the
> general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for
> testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means
> that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not
> be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another
> engineering development track, not a resource for end-users.
> -->%
> 
Perhaps the flow of FAQs and confusion resulting from the misnomer might
be stemmed somewhat if something like the following were appended to
that:

Note that "-STABLE" refers to the stability of the FreeBSD API,
not to the run-time stability of the branch. The FreeBSD API
(normally?) only changes across major version releases.

Someone with a more intimate understanding of how it all works could
probably write a better version of that.

I suspect that the confusion for new users isn't helped by the following
statement from the 'version-guide' article:

1.3 STABLE versus CURRENT

During the lifetime of each major release, an individual branch
may also be termed STABLE. This indicates that the FreeBSD
Project believes that the branch is of sufficiently proven
quality to be used by a wide range of users. Branches that need
further testing before being widely adopted are named CURRENT.

The crux of the confusion is exemplified here by the terms "wide range
of users" and "widely adopted" used in reference to the suggested target
audiences for STABLE and CURRENT, respectively. While the explanations
themselves are not specifically inaccurate, they are easily
misinterpreted or, rather, difficult to interpret correctly, for a new
user trying to understand it all. It simply reflects the confusion
caused by the use of the STABLE tag.

All-in-all, I think Marc G. Fournier had the best suggestion:

> Or rename it what it is:
> 
> 6.x-BETA
> 
> Where x == the next -RELEASE ...
> 
Which has at least the following benefits:
1. highlights that the software is BETA (and thus in need of
testing - in both senses)
2. shows that the software is version n+1 (n == existing
-RELEASE)
3. avoids the confusion of the -STABLE tag (both for new, and -
dare I say - existing, users)


Wayne


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-16 Thread Julian H. Stacey
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> 
>  > Hans Lambermont wrote:
>  > > Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>  > > > Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.
>  > > Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?
>  > 
>  > Nice, an improvement on what we have :-) If enough agree,
>  > the name of this mail list could be changed for a start.
> 
> Sure, but what colour the new bikeshed?

Trite.Stable != stable.  Let Core choose any non misnomer.

-- 
Julian Stacey.  BSD Unix C Net Consultancy, Munich/Muenchen  http://berklix.com
Mail Ascii, not HTML.   Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Don't buy it ! Get it free !  http://berklix.org/free-software
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-16 Thread Ian Smith
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Julian H. Stacey wrote:

 > Hans Lambermont wrote:
 > > Julian H. Stacey wrote:
 > > > Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.
 > > Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?
 > 
 > Nice, an improvement on what we have :-) If enough agree,
 > the name of this mail list could be changed for a start.

Sure, but what colour the new bikeshed?

Cheers, Ian

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-16 Thread Greg Byshenk
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:04PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> But, I'm just curious here ... for all of the talk going around about this 
> whole issue, how many ppl have truly ever been bitten by an unstable 
> -STABLE?  And for those that have, how long did it take to get help from a 
> developer to get it fixed?

I run -STABLE on a number of production machines.

I have twice been "bitten by an unstable -STABLE" -- but "bitten" in a 
very small way.

When we build a new -STABLE (on average perhaps once per month), we
build it on a test machine, so that we can be sure that it actually
works. Once it is tested and we know it works, then we can roll it out
to the production machines without undue concern.

I note that we follow the same process with out Linux machines, our
Irix machines, and our Windows machines.  Blindly rolling out updates
or patches to critical production machines is unwise and dangerous (at
least IMO).

I will add that I have never even needed to contact a maintainer.
When there has been a problem, I checked the lists.  In one case the
fix was already committed, in the other there was already an "I'm
working on it" message and a fix was commited in less than 24 hours.
In the interim, my test machine had a problem -- but that's what a 
test machine is for.


> In the case that started this thread, it seems to be that the developer 
> fixed his mistake fairly quickly, which is what one would expect ... it 
> shouldn't be so much that he *broke* -STABLE (shit happens, do you want 
> your money back?), but it should be 'was he around to reverse his mistake 
> in a reasonable amount of time?' ... ?

Exactly.


-- 
greg byshenk  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  Leiden, NL
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-16 Thread Julian H. Stacey
Hans Lambermont wrote:
> Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.
> Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?

Nice, an improvement on what we have :-) If enough agree,
the name of this mail list could be changed for a start.

-- 
Julian Stacey.  BSD Unix C Net Consultancy, Munich/Muenchen  http://berklix.com
Mail Ascii, not HTML.   Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Don't buy it ! Get it free !  http://berklix.org/free-software
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Gary Kline
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:04PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Hans Lambermont wrote:
> 
> >Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> >
> >>Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >>A promoter of FreeBSD I know has long encouraged people to upgrade
> >>from release to stable. Some don't & won't realise Stable is Not
> >>necessarily Stable, & may get burnt.  Much of the world speaks English
> >>only as a 2nd language.  They won't benefit from the double trouble of
> >>foreign + weird BSD geek speak:  "Stable isn't Stable ?  Yes or No !"
> >>"It's stable, but it's OK to crash ?  - I'll go Linux !"
> >>
> >>Imagine a boat labelled Stable: It sinks. The designers claim: "Tough!
> >>We left the Application Interface  (routes to bars & toilets) stable,
> >>but changed other stuff.   Hey ! Stable never meant Stable !
> >>

You've got a good point.  Wouldn't be be best to merge 
the mythical last-bug from x-BETA+ into x and have release-x
be the (abs) most stable *for that release*?

I have generally run -STABLE ((now/then -RELEASE)); it is to
the developers' credit [[all get 5 stars from here!]] that 
-STABLE has run so flawlessly until now.  ---Yeah, I  am
speaking only for myself; what else :-).


> 
> Or rename it what it is:
> 
> 6.x-BETA
> 
> Where x == the next -RELEASE ...
> 
> But, I'm just curious here ... for all of the talk going around about this 
> whole issue, how many ppl have truly ever been bitten by an unstable 
> -STABLE?  And for those that have, how long did it take to get help from a 
> developer to get it fixed?


Indeed.  This snafu didn't bite me because I was at 5.4... and
right, hat's off and cheers for Pawel Dawidek.  Everyone shouldbe
as consciencious --it'd be a vastly better world (.) 

gary

> 
> In the case that started this thread, it seems to be that the developer 
> fixed his mistake fairly quickly, which is what one would expect ... it 
> shouldn't be so much that he *broke* -STABLE (shit happens, do you want 
> your money back?), but it should be 'was he around to reverse his mistake 
> in a reasonable amount of time?' ... ?
> 

-- 
   Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org Public service Unix

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Michael Abbott

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Roland Smith wrote:

On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:46:57PM +0200, Martin Nilsson wrote:

Hans Lambermont wrote:
.. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead



That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the
difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.


Let me second that.  I hadn't realised that STABLE==RELENG_n (where n is 
the current version number) until very recently, and I've seen the "STABLE 
isn't stable" thing crop up over and over again over the last few years, 
both on mailing lists and IRC.

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Roland Smith
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 08:46:57PM +0200, Martin Nilsson wrote:
> Hans Lambermont wrote:
> >
> >Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?
> 
> .. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead, which is 
> what you are actually fetching from cvs :-)

That's a good idea, IMHO. When I started with FreeBSD I found the
difference between the branch names and cvs tags confusing.

Roland
-- 
R.F.Smith   http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914  B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)


pgpCYv8bks5SA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Roland Smith
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 03:41:04PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> But, I'm just curious here ... for all of the talk going around about this 
> whole issue, how many ppl have truly ever been bitten by an unstable 
> -STABLE?  And for those that have, how long did it take to get help from a 
> developer to get it fixed?

After installing from 5.4-RELEASE, I've tracked stable, and I haven't
had any real problems. This is a desktop system, not a server, BTW.

Maybe it depends on the frequency of updating? I usually update after there
has been a security advisory that affects me. Otherwise, if it ain't
broken...  

> shouldn't be so much that he *broke* -STABLE (shit happens, do you want 
> your money back?), 

:-)

Roland
-- 
R.F.Smith   http://www.xs4all.nl/~rsmith/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914  B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)


pgpdquFzheEVn.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Hans Lambermont
Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Hans Lambermont wrote:
>>Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>>>Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.
...
>>Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?
> 
> Or rename it what it is:
> 
> 6.x-BETA
> 
> Where x == the next -RELEASE ...

Also fine by me :)

I followed this long thread in slight amazement, but the 'what is
stable' confusion is very recognizable. I'm open for changing the name.

> In the case that started this thread, it seems to be that the
> developer fixed his mistake fairly quickly, which is what one would
> expect ... it shouldn't be so much that he *broke* -STABLE (shit
> happens, do you want your money back?), but it should be 'was he
> around to reverse his mistake in a reasonable amount of time?' ... ?

I think the answer is yes (and always has been afaik).

regards,
  Hans Lambermont
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Martin Nilsson

Hans Lambermont wrote:


Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?


.. or just stop calling it STABLE and call it RELENG_6 instead, which is 
what you are actually fetching from cvs :-)


/Martin

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Hans Lambermont wrote:


Julian H. Stacey wrote:


Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.


I agree.


A promoter of FreeBSD I know has long encouraged people to upgrade
from release to stable. Some don't & won't realise Stable is Not
necessarily Stable, & may get burnt.  Much of the world speaks English
only as a 2nd language.  They won't benefit from the double trouble of
foreign + weird BSD geek speak:  "Stable isn't Stable ?  Yes or No !"
"It's stable, but it's OK to crash ?  - I'll go Linux !"

Imagine a boat labelled Stable: It sinks. The designers claim: "Tough!
We left the Application Interface  (routes to bars & toilets) stable,
but changed other stuff.   Hey ! Stable never meant Stable !

It'd be some work to eradicate the misnomer, but the name's perhaps
less entrenched than one might guess, eg:
ftp ftp.freebsd.org
cd /pub/FreeBSD
dir
lrwxr-xr-x   1 ftpuser  ftpusers19 Mar 24 14:58 FreeBSD-stable 
-> branches/4.0-stable
cd  FreeBSD-stable
550 No such directory.


Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?


Or rename it what it is:

6.x-BETA

Where x == the next -RELEASE ...

But, I'm just curious here ... for all of the talk going around about this 
whole issue, how many ppl have truly ever been bitten by an unstable 
-STABLE?  And for those that have, how long did it take to get help from a 
developer to get it fixed?


In the case that started this thread, it seems to be that the developer 
fixed his mistake fairly quickly, which is what one would expect ... it 
shouldn't be so much that he *broke* -STABLE (shit happens, do you want 
your money back?), but it should be 'was he around to reverse his mistake 
in a reasonable amount of time?' ... ?



 
Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Hans Lambermont
Julian H. Stacey wrote:

> Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.

I agree.

> A promoter of FreeBSD I know has long encouraged people to upgrade
> from release to stable. Some don't & won't realise Stable is Not
> necessarily Stable, & may get burnt.  Much of the world speaks English
> only as a 2nd language.  They won't benefit from the double trouble of
> foreign + weird BSD geek speak:  "Stable isn't Stable ?  Yes or No !"
> "It's stable, but it's OK to crash ?  - I'll go Linux !"
> 
> Imagine a boat labelled Stable: It sinks. The designers claim: "Tough!
> We left the Application Interface  (routes to bars & toilets) stable,
> but changed other stuff.   Hey ! Stable never meant Stable !
> 
> It'd be some work to eradicate the misnomer, but the name's perhaps 
> less entrenched than one might guess, eg:
>   ftp ftp.freebsd.org
>   cd /pub/FreeBSD
>   dir
>   lrwxr-xr-x   1 ftpuser  ftpusers19 Mar 24 14:58 FreeBSD-stable 
> -> branches/4.0-stable
>   cd  FreeBSD-stable
>   550 No such directory.

Why not rename 'stable' into 'stable-api' ?

-- Hans Lambermont
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)


On 15 September 2006, at 11:16, Julian H. Stacey wrote:




Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.  A promoter of
FreeBSD I know has long encouraged people to upgrade from release
to stable. Some don't & won't realise Stable is Not necessarily
Stable, & may get burnt.  Much of the world speaks English only as
a 2nd language.  They won't benefit from the double trouble of
foreign + weird BSD geek speak:  "Stable isn't Stable ?  Yes or No !"
"It's stable, but it's OK to crash ?  - I'll go Linux !"

Imagine a boat labelled Stable: It sinks. The designers claim:
"Tough! We left the Application Interface  (routes to bars & toilets)
stable, but changed other stuff.   Hey ! Stable never meant Stable !


This is the perfect explanation. Thank you for putting what I am  
trying to say in words so well. :-)


It'd be some work to eradicate the misnomer, but the name's perhaps
less entrenched than one might guess, eg:
ftp ftp.freebsd.org
cd /pub/FreeBSD
dir
	lrwxr-xr-x   1 ftpuser  ftpusers19 Mar 24 14:58 FreeBSD- 
stable -> branches/4.0-stable

cd  FreeBSD-stable
550 No such directory.
--
Julian Stacey.  BSD Unix C Net Consultancy, Munich/Muenchen  http:// 
berklix.com

Mail Ascii, not HTML.   Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Don't buy it ! Get it free !  http://berklix.org/free-software
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"




--
hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)

 yknow when you go to a party, and everyones hooked up except  
one guy and one girl

 and so they look at each other like.. do we have to?
 intel & nvidia must be lookin at each other like that right now


Phone
Voice: +1 251 589 6348
Fax: Call the voice number and ask.

Email
General chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Large attachments: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPS-related stuff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

IM
AIM: hackmiester1337
Skype: hackmiester31337
YIM: hackm1ester
Gtalk: hackmiester
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xfire: hackmiester


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Julian H. Stacey
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= wrote:
> Jamie Bowden schrieb:
> > On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >> > Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
> >> No. STABLE means STABLE API.
> >> If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
> >> stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
> >> BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
> >> in current which is permanent ALPHA code.
> > No, this is what it means now. [...]
> Why do you say "No" if you mean "Yes, but in former times ..."?

Stable is a misnomer that harms FreeBSD somewhat.  A promoter of
FreeBSD I know has long encouraged people to upgrade from release
to stable. Some don't & won't realise Stable is Not necessarily
Stable, & may get burnt.  Much of the world speaks English only as
a 2nd language.  They won't benefit from the double trouble of
foreign + weird BSD geek speak:  "Stable isn't Stable ?  Yes or No !"
"It's stable, but it's OK to crash ?  - I'll go Linux !"

Imagine a boat labelled Stable: It sinks. The designers claim:
"Tough! We left the Application Interface  (routes to bars & toilets)
stable, but changed other stuff.   Hey ! Stable never meant Stable !

It'd be some work to eradicate the misnomer, but the name's perhaps 
less entrenched than one might guess, eg:
ftp ftp.freebsd.org
cd /pub/FreeBSD
dir
lrwxr-xr-x   1 ftpuser  ftpusers19 Mar 24 14:58 FreeBSD-stable 
-> branches/4.0-stable
cd  FreeBSD-stable
550 No such directory.
-- 
Julian Stacey.  BSD Unix C Net Consultancy, Munich/Muenchen  http://berklix.com
Mail Ascii, not HTML.   Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.
Don't buy it ! Get it free !  http://berklix.org/free-software
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Björn König

Jamie Bowden schrieb:

On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?




No. STABLE means STABLE API.




If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
in current which is permanent ALPHA code.



No, this is what it means now. [...]


Why do you say "No" if you mean "Yes, but in former times ..."?

Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: arrrrgh! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's gmirror code?!

2006-09-15 Thread Alban Hertroys

On Sep 15, 2006, at 24:34, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:

Hahahahaha... That's ironic...


That wasn't meant to be ironic. Years of experience and  
observations of development lead to this conclusion.


RIght. All i can say, though, is that someone that doesn't know any  
better would probably not think "Oh! That means that upgrades are  
possible between releases, and not that my system will actually  
run, or anything!"

It just seems it'd be quite a cause of confusion.


So, actually Microsoft may be correctly claiming that WindowsXP is  
more stable than Linux. That it spontaneously reboots as soon as I  
bore it isn't related at all...


--
Alban Hertroys

"This person has performed an illegal operation,
 and will be shot down."



!DSPAM:74,450a59b47241130310126!


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Karol Kwiatkowski
On 15/09/2006 01:37, Benjamin Lutz wrote:
> On Friday 15 September 2006 01:15, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> Anyone who is confused but doesn't attempt to enlighten themselves by
>> reading the provided documentation deserves to stay confused :)
> 
> What if they're unaware of their own confusion?

I guess they get what they deserves ;)

Is there a be better source of enlightenment than a handbook?
To quote[1]:

-->%
21.2.2.1 What Is FreeBSD-STABLE?

FreeBSD-STABLE is our development branch from which major releases are
made. Changes go into this branch at a different pace, and with the
general assumption that they have first gone into FreeBSD-CURRENT for
testing. This is still a development branch, however, and this means
that at any given time, the sources for FreeBSD-STABLE may or may not
be suitable for any particular purpose. It is simply another
engineering development track, not a resource for end-users.
-->%

Regards,

Karol

[1]http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html

-- 
Karol Kwiatkowski  
OpenPGP: http://www.orchid.homeunix.org/carlos/gpg/0x06E09309.asc



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Jamie Bowden wrote:


No, this is what it means now.  I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1,
and -STABLE used to mean exactly that.  The developement branch was
-C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing.  You were
not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off.


Ah, QA through fear of the mighty hand of Jordan coming flying out your 
monitor and ripping your fingers off :)



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Benjamin Lutz
On Friday 15 September 2006 01:15, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Anyone who is confused but doesn't attempt to enlighten themselves by
> reading the provided documentation deserves to stay confused :)

What if they're unaware of their own confusion?

Cheers
Benjamin


pgpvrWdyprhGN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 05:34:08PM -0500, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:
> 
> On 14 September 2006, at 14:05, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> 
> >hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) schrieb:
> >>On 12 September 2006, at 02:06, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> >>>Karl Denninger schrieb:
> >>>
> This is not cool folks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)
> >>>
> >>>-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a  
> >>>stable  and working operating system.
> >>Hahahahaha... That's ironic...
> >
> >That wasn't meant to be ironic. Years of experience and  
> >observations of development lead to this conclusion.
> 
> RIght. All i can say, though, is that someone that doesn't know any  
> better would probably not think "Oh! That means that upgrades are  
> possible between releases, and not that my system will actually run,  
> or anything!"
> It just seems it'd be quite a cause of confusion.

Anyone who is confused but doesn't attempt to enlighten themselves by
reading the provided documentation deserves to stay confused :)

Kris


pgpdu8UO4NIuT.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)


On 14 September 2006, at 14:05, Björn König wrote:


hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) schrieb:

On 12 September 2006, at 02:06, Björn König wrote:

Karl Denninger schrieb:


This is not cool folks.



I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a  
stable  and working operating system.

Hahahahaha... That's ironic...


That wasn't meant to be ironic. Years of experience and  
observations of development lead to this conclusion.


RIght. All i can say, though, is that someone that doesn't know any  
better would probably not think "Oh! That means that upgrades are  
possible between releases, and not that my system will actually run,  
or anything!"

It just seems it'd be quite a cause of confusion.



Regards
Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"




--
hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)

 yknow when you go to a party, and everyones hooked up except  
one guy and one girl

 and so they look at each other like.. do we have to?
 intel & nvidia must be lookin at each other like that right now


Phone
Voice: +1 251 589 6348
Fax: Call the voice number and ask.

Email
General chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Large attachments: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPS-related stuff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

IM
AIM: hackmiester1337
Skype: hackmiester31337
YIM: hackm1ester
Gtalk: hackmiester
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xfire: hackmiester


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Gary Kline
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:44:12AM -0400, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
> 
> >No. STABLE means STABLE API.
> 
> >If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
> >stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
> >BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
> >in current which is permanent ALPHA code.
> 
> No, this is what it means now.  I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1,
> and -STABLE used to mean exactly that.  The developement branch was
> -C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing.  You were
> not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off.  This
> change to the current structure wasn't meant to be permanent when it
> was done (between 4 and 5, IIRC), and was only done out of necessity
> because the changes across that major release were huge.
> 
> FreeBSD needs an interim track that mirrors what -STABLE used to be,
> which is a track between point releases that can be relied upon (and
> RELEASE_x_y doesn't work, since it only addresses security and bugs
> deemed worthy, which most aren't).
> 


YES [bar].   Until then I'm wedged into running -RELEASE 
(and occasionally praying to the computer gods.


> -- 
> Jamie Bowden
> -- 
> "It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
> Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
> Iain Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ___
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

-- 
   Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org Public service Unix

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Björn König

hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) schrieb:


On 12 September 2006, at 02:06, Björn König wrote:


Karl Denninger schrieb:


This is not cool folks.



I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable  
and working operating system.



Hahahahaha... That's ironic...


That wasn't meant to be ironic. Years of experience and observations of 
development lead to this conclusion.


Regards
Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Björn König

Vivek Khera schrieb:


On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:23 PM, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a  stable 
and working operating system.



Hahahahaha... That's ironic...



No, just misinterpretation of which attribute of the system to which  
the word "stable" applies.




Do you really think I misinterpreted the meaning of -STABLE? *I* think 
most people misinterprete -STABLE because the first thing that comes to 
mind is runtime stability. The same issue exists in the GNU/Debian Linux 
world: Debian stable doesn't mean that the system run always rock-solid 
and works perfectly, but rather the state of software is stable, i.e. 
maintainers ensure 100% compatibility between updates.


Regards
Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Jamie Bowden

On 9/9/06, Mark Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?



No. STABLE means STABLE API.



If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
in current which is permanent ALPHA code.


No, this is what it means now.  I've been running FreeBSD since 1.1,
and -STABLE used to mean exactly that.  The developement branch was
-C, and -S was where things went after extensive testing.  You were
not allowed to break -S or Jordan would rip your fingers off.  This
change to the current structure wasn't meant to be permanent when it
was done (between 4 and 5, IIRC), and was only done out of necessity
because the changes across that major release were huge.

FreeBSD needs an interim track that mirrors what -STABLE used to be,
which is a track between point releases that can be relied upon (and
RELEASE_x_y doesn't work, since it only addresses security and bugs
deemed worthy, which most aren't).

--
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-14 Thread Oliver Fromme
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
 > Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
 > > Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > > 
 > > > If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your
 > > > system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or
 > > > later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production
 > > > systems.
 > > 
 > > I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines
 > > without ever having any trouble.
 > 
 > Ditto ... in fact, I do that on my desktop and have yet to hit a problem 
 > ... -STABLE *is* generally very stable ...

Same here.

However, if you want (or need) to track stable, there are
certain possibilities to avoid trouble.  Of course watching
the -stable mailing list (and possibly even -cvs-all) and
reading /usr/src/UPDATING should be a "must".  But there
are more things that can be done.

On important production machines, it might be a good idea
to track -stable with some delay.  For example, always update
to the -stable date of 4 weeks ago (using the -D option of
cvs, or the "date=" keyword of cvsup), after making sure that
no critical problems have been reported in the mailing list
in the past 4 weeks.  Chances are that critical bugs are
detected and fixed pretty quickly in the -stable branch.

And of course:  Always make sure that you have good backups.
But that's even true if you don't track -stable.

Best regards
   Oliver

PS:  Some people think that a RAID1 (mirror) is a substitute
for a backup.  It's not.

-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier
to program in than some that do."
-- Dennis M. Ritchie
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Tony Maher
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0500
>> Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your
>>> system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or
>>> later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production
>>> systems.
>>
>>
>> I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines
>> without ever having any trouble.
> 
> 
> Ditto ... in fact, I do that on my desktop and have yet to hit a problem
> ... -STABLE *is* generally very stable ...
> 
> Stupid question here ... if -STABLE shouldn't be tracked, who exactly is
> doing testing on it?  Those doing "the work" on -CURRENT, I would
> imagine, are tracking -CURRENT, and testing the code put in there for
> bugs ... when deemed 'bug free', then its being MFCd to -STABLE, but if
> those of us that *are* tracking -STABLE stop'd tracking it ... who would
> be testing it?

It is not that you should not track it but where you should be
tracking/testing it.

Not on critical production servers would be a good start ;-)

--
tonym
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:37:53AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0500
> >Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your
> >>system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or
> >>later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production
> >>systems.
> >
> > I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines
> >without ever having any trouble.
> 
> Ditto ... in fact, I do that on my desktop and have yet to hit a problem 
> ... -STABLE *is* generally very stable ...
> 
> Stupid question here ... if -STABLE shouldn't be tracked

No-one's said that, so yeah, not the best question ;^)

Kris


pgpBQxxydV6Mf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:


On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0500
Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your
system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or
later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production
systems.


I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines
without ever having any trouble.


Ditto ... in fact, I do that on my desktop and have yet to hit a problem 
... -STABLE *is* generally very stable ...


Stupid question here ... if -STABLE shouldn't be tracked, who exactly is 
doing testing on it?  Those doing "the work" on -CURRENT, I would imagine, 
are tracking -CURRENT, and testing the code put in there for bugs ... when 
deemed 'bug free', then its being MFCd to -STABLE, but if those of us that 
*are* tracking -STABLE stop'd tracking it ... who would be testing it?



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! - back to Pawel

2006-09-13 Thread David Magda

On Sep 13, 2006, at 21:00, Karl Denninger wrote:

BTW, part of the issue here with the -BETA thing is that there's no  
clear
timeline on this available to people.  I certainly was not aware  
that you were
in a pre-check period to locking down the code to start the process  
of burning

the next minor "official" rev.


Some upcoming release information is available online:

http://www.freebsd.org/releng/

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?! - back to Pawel

2006-09-13 Thread Karl Denninger
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > This is not cool folks.
> 
> I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
> gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.

 (elided)

Thank you Pawel for the explanation.

I understand that things go wrong; as a software developer I've let bad 
code "out of the barn" before.  I try like hell not to have it happen, but 
it has

The explanation is appreciated.

BTW, part of the issue here with the -BETA thing is that there's no clear
timeline on this available to people.  I certainly was not aware that you were
in a pre-check period to locking down the code to start the process of burning
the next minor "official" rev.

BTW, if this is indeed the case, you guys definitely need to look at the PR I
filed on the Rcoketport driver.  That problem either needs to be found and
taken care of or those boards need to come out of the supported hardware list
for the next release - its definitely broken, and the cause is not something 
immediately obvious (or I would have fixed it by now!)  I  efforting this
but its its only got a moderate priority around here right now.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Gary Kline
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:26:03PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > > This is not cool folks.
> > > 
> > > I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
> > > gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.
> > > 
> > > The change was committed to HEAD at 9 August. The change fixed one bug,
> > > but introduced another, which I didn't expected. The change seemed to be
> > > trivial and I only tested that it fixes the bug I was tracking down, I
> > > haven't looked for regressions.
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, after this lengthy discussion, I've switched to -RELEASE.
> > -STABLE just ain't...   We all realize that none of us would 
> > put out a buggy release--not even -CURRENT.  But let me ask
> > the next obvious question.  How difficult would it be to
> > build a regression test, or suite of tests?  Obviously, this
> > could be done over months -> years. (In my last lifetime
> > as a hacker I was in the kernel test group [a BSD-4.4 based 
> > release on new architecture]. )  It's a bit hard to believe 
> > that with all the genius in this effort, that no regression
> > testing is done.
> 
> I'm trying to implement regression tests to the code I add. You can find
> them in /usr/src/tools/regression/:
> 
>   geom_concat 2 files, 2 tests
>   geom_eli15 files, 5818 tests
>   geom_gate   3 files, 6 tests
>   geom_mirror 7 files, 27 tests
>   geom_nop2 files, 2 tests
>   geom_raid3  12 files, 13 tests
>   geom_shsec  2 files, 6 tests
>   geom_stripe 2 files, 2 tests
>   ipsec   1 file, 306 tests
>   redzone91 file, 6 tests
>   usr.bin/pkill   27 files, 49 tests
> 
> As I said already, I mistakenly thought the change was trivial and the
> only thing I tested was if it fixes a bug I was tracking down back then.
> 
> We dicuss from time to time that we should have service simlar to
> tinderbox, which will run regression tests regularly and report
> regressions to the mailing lists - the more we automate the smaller
> chance for a human mistake like mine. Unfortunately this is not yet
> done.


You're right in saying that the more automation, the 
more stability.  Hats off for all this good work 
(from somebody who has been there before:)  This is
the kind of thing tht needs to be done (i) to catch bugs
before they are committed, and (ii) to make BSD all the 
more trustworthy and bullet-proof.  

HAving run FBSD since 2.0.5 and only *one* "fatal trap" is
pretty hard to beat.

gary


> 
> -- 
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek   http://www.wheel.pl
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FreeBSD.org
> FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!



-- 
   Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org Public service Unix

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:15:04AM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > This is not cool folks.
> > 
> > I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
> > gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.
> > 
> > The change was committed to HEAD at 9 August. The change fixed one bug,
> > but introduced another, which I didn't expected. The change seemed to be
> > trivial and I only tested that it fixes the bug I was tracking down, I
> > haven't looked for regressions.
> > 
>   
>   Well, after this lengthy discussion, I've switched to -RELEASE.
>   -STABLE just ain't...   We all realize that none of us would 
>   put out a buggy release--not even -CURRENT.  But let me ask
>   the next obvious question.  How difficult would it be to
>   build a regression test, or suite of tests?  Obviously, this
>   could be done over months -> years. (In my last lifetime
>   as a hacker I was in the kernel test group [a BSD-4.4 based 
>   release on new architecture]. )  It's a bit hard to believe 
>   that with all the genius in this effort, that no regression
>   testing is done.

I'm trying to implement regression tests to the code I add. You can find
them in /usr/src/tools/regression/:

geom_concat 2 files, 2 tests
geom_eli15 files, 5818 tests
geom_gate   3 files, 6 tests
geom_mirror 7 files, 27 tests
geom_nop2 files, 2 tests
geom_raid3  12 files, 13 tests
geom_shsec  2 files, 6 tests
geom_stripe 2 files, 2 tests
ipsec   1 file, 306 tests
redzone91 file, 6 tests
usr.bin/pkill   27 files, 49 tests

As I said already, I mistakenly thought the change was trivial and the
only thing I tested was if it fixes a bug I was tracking down back then.

We dicuss from time to time that we should have service simlar to
tinderbox, which will run regression tests regularly and report
regressions to the mailing lists - the more we automate the smaller
chance for a human mistake like mine. Unfortunately this is not yet
done.

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek   http://www.wheel.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!


pgp2bvrpeTG1I.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Hans Lambermont
Chuck Swiger wrote:

> On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Gary Kline wrote:
...
>>  How difficult would it be to build a regression test, or suite
>>  of tests?
> 
> There are already a number of regression tests under /usr/src/tools/
> regression;

Are they part of an (automated) tinderbox system somewhere ?

regards,
   Hans Lambermont
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Chuck Swiger

On Sep 13, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Gary Kline wrote:

Well, after this lengthy discussion, I've switched to -RELEASE.
-STABLE just ain't...   We all realize that none of us would
put out a buggy release--not even -CURRENT.  But let me ask
the next obvious question.  How difficult would it be to
build a regression test, or suite of tests?


There are already a number of regression tests under /usr/src/tools/ 
regression;
Peter Holm has additional stress testing tools at http://www.holm.cc/ 
stress/


--
-Chuck


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Gary Kline
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 04:46:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > This is not cool folks.
> 
> I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
> gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.
> 
> The change was committed to HEAD at 9 August. The change fixed one bug,
> but introduced another, which I didn't expected. The change seemed to be
> trivial and I only tested that it fixes the bug I was tracking down, I
> haven't looked for regressions.
> 

Well, after this lengthy discussion, I've switched to -RELEASE.
-STABLE just ain't...   We all realize that none of us would 
put out a buggy release--not even -CURRENT.  But let me ask
the next obvious question.  How difficult would it be to
build a regression test, or suite of tests?  Obviously, this
could be done over months -> years. (In my last lifetime
as a hacker I was in the kernel test group [a BSD-4.4 based 
release on new architecture]. )  It's a bit hard to believe 
that with all the genius in this effort, that no regression
testing is done.

gary



-- 
   Gary Kline [EMAIL PROTECTED]   www.thought.org Public service Unix

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> This is not cool folks.

I'm really sorry for the breakage. I'm trying to treat -STABLE very
gently, unfortunately this time I made a mistake.

The change was committed to HEAD at 9 August. The change fixed one bug,
but introduced another, which I didn't expected. The change seemed to be
trivial and I only tested that it fixes the bug I was tracking down, I
haven't looked for regressions.

After nearly one month in HEAD, I MFCed the change (at 4 September),
because I wanted it to be released in -BETAs, so people can test it if
they already didn't in HEAD and I was quite sure that after 1 month in
HEAD the change is ok.

I found the problem after 4 days (at 8 September) and backed the change
out from the RELENG_6 branch.

Once again, I'm really sorry, I'm trying not to make such surprises to
the users, unfortunately it sometimes happens and you have to be ready
that many changes goes to -STABLE branch just before release, so they
can be tested by a wider audience. That's why we prepare -BETAs and not
release -RELEASEs immediately.  I'm not writting this to justify my
mistake, just trying to show how you can avoid such bad days in the
future.

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek   http://www.wheel.pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!


pgpSmq7KzBDhd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-13 Thread Vivek Khera


On Sep 12, 2006, at 6:23 PM, hackmiester (Hunter Fuller) wrote:

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a  
stable and working operating system.


Hahahahaha... That's ironic...


No, just misinterpretation of which attribute of the system to which  
the word "stable" applies.




Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)


On 12 September 2006, at 02:06, Björn König wrote:


Karl Denninger schrieb:


This is not cool folks.


I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable  
and working operating system.


Hahahahaha... That's ironic...

(For lack of a better word, really.)

-STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain stable. If you want  
reliability then jump from release to release.


Regards
Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"




--
hackmiester (Hunter Fuller)

 yknow when you go to a party, and everyones hooked up except  
one guy and one girl

 and so they look at each other like.. do we have to?
 intel & nvidia must be lookin at each other like that right now


Phone
Voice: +1 251 589 6348
Fax: Call the voice number and ask.

Email
General chat: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Large attachments: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SPS-related stuff: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

IM
AIM: hackmiester1337
Skype: hackmiester31337
YIM: hackm1ester
Gtalk: hackmiester
MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xfire: hackmiester


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Darren Pilgrim

Karl Denninger wrote:

I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back to
-STABLE from -CURRENT that it  be tested for the most common
functionality (that is, does it work at all?)  In this case all that someone
had to do was boot the system and then detach and reattach a mirror component -
the most basic of functionality - to detect that the patch was bad.

That obviously wasn't done in this instance.

I understand that finding corner cases and expecting exhaustive testing 
is unreasonable from a free project - even in a -RELEASE we don't get that.


But this wasn't a corner case - it was a situation where absolutely zero
testing was performed before the MFC was sent back to the source tree.


So when can the FreeBSD Foundation expect your donation of computers for 
the purpose of GEOM testing?


--
Darren Pilgrim
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Doug Barton
Karl Denninger wrote:

> You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,

I think there are a lot of users who disagree with you on that one.

> and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something being
> broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!

These are different issues.

> I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back to
> -STABLE from -CURRENT that it  be tested for the most common
> functionality (that is, does it work at all?)  In this case all that someone
> had to do was boot the system and then detach and reattach a mirror component 
> -
> the most basic of functionality - to detect that the patch was bad.
> 
> That obviously wasn't done in this instance.

No one has disagreed with you about this. Several people have apologized
already. It's past time that you got over it.

That said, no matter how stable (in the dictionary term of the word) a
given branch of FreeBSD is (or is not) at any given time, nothing replaces
the need to test changes/updates yourself, on non-production hardware,
before deploying them to anything you care about. That is just as true of
FreeBSD as it is of any commercial software.

Time to move on here folks,

Doug

-- 

This .signature sanitized for your protection

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Mike Tancsa

At 10:15 AM 9/12/2006, Karl Denninger wrote:

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> Karl Denninger schrieb:
>
> >This is not cool folks.
>
> I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)
>
> -STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable and
> working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain
> stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to release.
>
> Regards
> Bj?rn

You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,


I think FreeBSD does not work for everyone with every setup, but 
works really well for some number of people.  For me, I am in b). In 
fact it works really well for me and the some 250 boxes I look after 
of varying age and configs...  There have been some unfortunate bugs, 
but I take that as part of what FreeBSD is-- a volunteer project.  If 
FreeBSD releases have *never* worked for you (I will take your word 
you are not being childish and exaggerating here), why on earth are 
you using FreeBSD ?  Also, what are you comparing FreeBSD to, where 
the RELEASE works for everyone out of the box for ever and ever 
?  You cant mean Windows, as they release monthly updates-- some of 
which after having gone through tens of thousands of dollars of 
regression testing (FreeBSD does not have an army of employees to do 
planned regression testing let alone tens of thousands of dollars), 
and manage to introduce BIGGER bugs than they were fixing like they 
did last month with Win2k.  You cant mean LINUX as they seem to be 
doing a kernel a month (or more) recently.  Which OS are you talking 
about that is so perfect from release to release ?


---Mike 


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread J. T. Farmer

Greg Barniskis wrote:

Karl Denninger wrote:
and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something 
being

broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!
Maybe splitting hairs, but advising a user with a problem to try using 
the -STABLE code that exists at the time of the problem report is 
really not the same as advising them to /track/ STABLE.


If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your 
system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or 
later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production systems.


On the other hand if you update a production system to a point in time 
of STABLE that fixes a particular bug that plagued a release point, 
and then you don't update again until the next release point or 
security advisory, you will very likely find joy.

See my similar comment that echoes Karl's.  Now go back and read what
Karl said.  He's not  tracking -STABLE on a production box, he updated to
-STABLE to fix an existing problem.  What bit him in the ass is a problem
with code that "in theory" had not changed and _was_supposed_ to have
been tested.  That is, it was working, he upgraded, as everyone tells 
you to

do, to get fixes to -RELEASE bugs, not to track -STABLE.

John

--
John T. Farmer  Owner & CTO  GoldSword Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   865-691-6498 Knoxville TN
   Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Steve O'Hara-Smith
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0500
Greg Barniskis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your 
> system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or 
> later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production 
> systems.

I did exactly that all the way from 2.0 to 4.11 on various machines
without ever having any trouble.

-- 
C:>WIN  |   Directable Mirror Arrays
The computer obeys and wins.| A better way to focus the sun
You lose and Bill collects. |licences available see
|http://www.sohara.org/
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Greg Barniskis

Karl Denninger wrote:


You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,


eh? Been doing that for 10 years without a single significant 
problem. Granted, we've been lucky enough here not to encounter (a) 
flakier hardware components and/or (b) flakier combos of drivers & 
apps & configs & heavy loads (a.k.a. bugs in FreeBSD) that other 
folks admittedly have encountered in the most painful ways.


Releases aren't guaranteed to be perfect, nothing is, but plenty of 
users have no complaints at all about release point reliability. 
They're just not posting their non-problems to the lists.



and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something being
broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!


Maybe splitting hairs, but advising a user with a problem to try 
using the -STABLE code that exists at the time of the problem report 
is really not the same as advising them to /track/ STABLE.


If you /track/ STABLE by frequently cvsupping it and rebuilding your 
system, you will very likely encounter a serious problem sooner or 
later. That's why tracking it is not recommended for production 
systems.


On the other hand if you update a production system to a point in 
time of STABLE that fixes a particular bug that plagued a release 
point, and then you don't update again until the next release point 
or security advisory, you will very likely find joy.


--
Greg Barniskis, Computer Systems Integrator
South Central Library System (SCLS)
Library Interchange Network (LINK)
, (608) 266-6348
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Oliver Brandmueller
Hi.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:15:47AM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back
> to -STABLE from -CURRENT that it  be tested for the most
> common functionality (that is, does it work at all?)  In this case all
> that someone had to do was boot the system and then detach and
> reattach a mirror component - the most basic of functionality - to
> detect that the patch was bad.

Thank god, nothing really can happen, if you deploy a new -STABLE on 
your servers, since of course before deploying a new piece of software 
it's being tested on a non-prod test setup, where you'll notice such 
apparent problems - especially when using -STABLE, where you never know, 
if you are probably just in the middle of a bigger commit.

So, since nothing important could break, what's the hassle all about?

- Oliver

-- 
| Oliver Brandmueller | Offenbacher Str. 1  | Germany   D-14197 Berlin |
| Fon +49-172-3130856 | Fax +49-172-3145027 | WWW:   http://the.addict.de/ |
|   Ich bin das Internet. Sowahr ich Gott helfe.   |
| Eine gewerbliche Nutzung aller enthaltenen Adressen ist nicht gestattet! |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Karl Denninger
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:59:02AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> 
> On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> 
> >-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable  
> >and working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces  
> >remain stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to  
> >release.
> 
> If you want reliability, then you need to do your own testing on your  
> own hardware on your own application prior to replacing your working  
> version with the new one.  Never rely on anyone else saying "Yeah, it  
> will work".  It will come back and bite you where you don't want to  
> be bit.
> 
> The other side of this is "don't replace what works" and just leave  
> things as they are.

That'd be nice - but in this case the reason for the replacement was that
there's SERIOUS breakage in the serial drivers (at least the Rocketport ones,
and perhaps more) in 6.x, which was what prompted the update.

Finding a totally-unrelated thing MFCd back with zero testing was QUITE a 
surpriseand not something I would have tested for ANYWAY, since
the commitlog for sys and this module suggested that the change made to 
that section of code was in fact to remove some "inappropriate" comments - 
not change functionality in a way that could potentially cause this sort 
of breakage!

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Karl Denninger
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 09:06:15AM +0200, Bj?rn K?nig wrote:
> Karl Denninger schrieb:
> 
> >This is not cool folks.
> 
> I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)
> 
> -STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable and 
> working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain 
> stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to release.
> 
> Regards
> Bj?rn

You've never been able to get reliability by jumping from release to release,
and every time someone comes in the lists to complain about something being
broken in -RELEASE, the advice is to go to and track -STABLE!

Guys, what's written in a handbook may be all well and good, but its what
 that matters - and this is what has "really happened" for 
the last ten years with FreeBSD!

I don't think its too much to ask that before something is MFC'd back to
-STABLE from -CURRENT that it  be tested for the most common
functionality (that is, does it work at all?)  In this case all that someone
had to do was boot the system and then detach and reattach a mirror component -
the most basic of functionality - to detect that the patch was bad.

That obviously wasn't done in this instance.

I understand that finding corner cases and expecting exhaustive testing 
is unreasonable from a free project - even in a -RELEASE we don't get that.

But this wasn't a corner case - it was a situation where absolutely zero
testing was performed before the MFC was sent back to the source tree.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Michael Butler

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Vivek Khera wrote:
| If you want reliability, then you need to do your own testing on your
| own hardware on your own application prior to replacing your working
| version with the new one.  Never rely on anyone else saying "Yeah, it
| will work".  It will come back and bite you where you don't want to be
bit.
|
| The other side of this is "don't replace what works" and just leave
| things as they are.

I must say that this one critical point is what made me choose FreeBSD
over Linux way back in ~1992. It is possible, indeed almost mandatory in
a commercial setting, to build a local repository containing the OS and
*everything* required to build it.

Good change management is not about tracking the latest and greatest,
it's about being able to make sensible decisions about which changes to
implement, when and, most of all, knowing why.

Security isn't just about firewalls, it's about business continuity too,

Michael

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFBr7xQv9rrgRC1JIRAnboAJ4vHl7UAF149CavttzqVwD/r8aIlgCggmY8
JyW4le67COyphcFoUUbZ7ng=
=0rDL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Vivek Khera


On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:06 AM, Björn König wrote:

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable  
and working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces  
remain stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to  
release.


If you want reliability, then you need to do your own testing on your  
own hardware on your own application prior to replacing your working  
version with the new one.  Never rely on anyone else saying "Yeah, it  
will work".  It will come back and bite you where you don't want to  
be bit.


The other side of this is "don't replace what works" and just leave  
things as they are.





Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-12 Thread Björn König

Karl Denninger schrieb:


This is not cool folks.


I think you misunderstood what -STABLE means. (Or maybe I do?)

-STABLE is still a development branch without guarantee of a stable and 
working operating system. -STABLE guarantees that interfaces remain 
stable. If you want reliability then jump from release to release.


Regards
Björn
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Mark Kirkwood

Karl Denninger wrote:




No, I would like -STABLE to be treated as what it is claimed to be - BETA
code, not ALPHA code.

There's a huge difference between the two, and MFCing something back to
-STABLE without testing the  functionality of the module you're working
with first does not fit the BETA model (it DOES fit the Alpha model.)

This is coming from someone who has run FreeBSD in a production environment
for basically 10 years, and has even sometimes used -CURRENT during that time
(with full knowledge that running THAT is, indeed, ALPHA code!)




I guess part of the problem is not enough of us running -CURRENT, so 
bugs can slip through into -STABLE via MFC (I know I'm guilty here - 2 
boxes running -STABLE, none on -CURRENT)


Cheers

Mark

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread J. T. Farmer

Volker wrote:

This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was that -STABLE 
meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed stable ... and yes, I do run 
stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the occasional 'oopses', but "blantant and 
obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't classify as an 'oops' 




Guys,

we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software
which has been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
about real software.

Also, you should never go with -STABLE on a production server. I'm
sure this has been made clear in the handbook. If it's really a that
import server in production use, go with a RELEASE. -STABLE is not a
technology playground as CURRENT but should be seen as a BETA
testing system. If that's not the case, then why use RELEASE at all?
  

Pardon me, but I do have to interject a very large laugh here.  What's the
first recommendation that's made _every_ time someone posts a problem
with a -RELEASE installation?  It's "Well, go update to -STABLE and then
we will might be able to help you."

Simply put, running a -RELEASE means that you _are_ running software
with _known_ problems.

I'm very thankful for all the work that people put into FreeBSD.  However,
that doesn't blind me to problems with the current setup.  It may be the 
best
that we have, it may be better than the Linux world, but that doesn't 
mean that

it solves all our problems and that we can't improve it.

John(FreeBSD since 2.0.x on an AMD K5-100 with 16MB of ram...)

--
John T. Farmer  Owner & CTO  GoldSword Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   865-691-6498 Knoxville TN
   Consulting, Design, & Development of Networks & Software

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


[OT] Re: Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 02:37:37 +0200, Volker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> MFC means "merge from current" (read as: merge from CURRENT [HEAD]
> cvs tree into the current -STABLE tree).

Way off-topic: I had a patch around my stuff to add this (and some others I
don't remember now) to the wtf (1) base, or even a "FreeBSD Glossary"
section in the handbook.  It certainly wouldn't hurt to have one, and at
least me would thank the brave fellow who did it :)

-- 
Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED],wait4.org}>
Powered by FreeBSD

  "Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse."

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread Volker
On 2006-09-11 02:25, Stephen Clark wrote:
> Sorry to be dense but what does MFCing mean. I have googled for it but
> can find
> nothing that explains it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Steve
> 

Steve,

MFC means "merge from current" (read as: merge from CURRENT [HEAD]
cvs tree into the current -STABLE tree).

I'm seeing -CURRENT as a playground for new features, technologies
and support for latest hardware. If something has worked out there,
the changes are merged from the -CURRENT tree into the (non-release)
-STABLE tree.

-STABLE has a broader audience and mistakes will probably being
detected there. At a time before RELEASE date the -STABLE tree is
being frozen (no new features are allowed to be merged into -STABLE)
and after a testing phase (BETA / PRE-RELEASE) the code will be
released.

Greetings,

Volker
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread Stephen Clark

Volker wrote:


On 2006-09-11 01:33, 'Anubhav A.' wrote:
 


in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Volker thusly...
   


we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software which has
been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
 


Recently i read about which is more than "hello-world" ...

 They Write the Right Stuff
 http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html


... but you did ask.


 - Parv

   



Interesting article but I really do not believe even the shuttle
software is 100% bug free. Just because there has been only one bug
found in the last version, does not mean it's really guaranteed to
be bug free. It's just: No one experienced one and no one discovered
one more. On the other side they do not implement much new features
every day and they do not have to care about hardware and market
changes every other day.

I suspect a lot of trouble even for NASA's mission does come from
software bugs and who knows how many lifes can be accounted for
software bugs. Remembering the first launch of a Ariane-5 rocket? It
has been self destroyed because of nothing but a software bug. Or
what about the first NAVY combat ship w/ steering controlled by
Windows NT? Out of control by a blue screen...

A developer can't always foresee the environment where his code will
later work in and that is even causing trouble.

And again, errors and mistakes are human. And those who shout out
"why didn't you test enough" should ask themself, how much have THEY
contributed to the community? The hackers are contributing enough
(my view) and are really doing a good job.

I do not care about HOW MANY bugs a beta quality piece of software
does contain but what IMHO matters is the timeframe to FIX them and
the FreeBSD project and other OS communities are good in that.

Greetings,

Volker
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

 

Sorry to be dense but what does MFCing mean. I have googled for it but 
can find

nothing that explains it.

Thanks,
Steve

--

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."  (Ben Franklin)


"The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty 
decreases."  (Thomas Jefferson)




___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:11:22PM +, Michael Abbott wrote:
> >>You can track changes to a particular release - say by using
> >>RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still
> >>say you are tracking STABLE?
> >If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
> >tracking -STABLE.
> 
> Damn, I'm confused now.  Let me try and get this straight:
> 
> CURRENT
>   This is, by definition, broken a good part of the time, and is 
> what it says, namely current, ie work in progress.
> 
> STABLE
>   This is broken some of the time and .. uh .. isn't really all that 
> stable, actually.
> 
> RELENG_n_m
>   This is completely stable and only tracks security fixes.

Incorrect.  This is "completely FIXED", which is not the same thing as STABLE.
"Fixed in a broken state" is still broken, aka the serial I/O problems in 6.x
that I've found (and for which there is apparently no current fix in any of
the branches of 6.x.)

> RELENG_n (RELENG_6 at the moment)
>   Has somebody just said that RELENG_6 = STABLE?  I'm going to guess 
> then that RELENG_7 is CURRENT.
>   No, this doesn't make sense to me at all.
> 
> >Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!
> 
> Eh?  T?

As in "Tag", which is the syntax that acutally shows up in the "CVS"
directory under the source tree.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 10:15:20PM +0300, Reko Turja wrote:
> From: "Karl Denninger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:39 PM
> >Yes it is, in the general case; in any event if you track RELENG_6_1 
> >you will
> >get no bug fixes in general - security related items to filter back 
> >down but
> >in general bug reports posted against a -RELEASE are, if addressed, 
> >put into
> >-STABLE.
> 
> You would like untested fixes to hit the release version first? By the 
> way, possible breakage of STABLE due MFC process was announced a good 
> while ago...

No, I would like -STABLE to be treated as what it is claimed to be - BETA
code, not ALPHA code.

There's a huge difference between the two, and MFCing something back to
-STABLE without testing the  functionality of the module you're working
with first does not fit the BETA model (it DOES fit the Alpha model.)

This is coming from someone who has run FreeBSD in a production environment
for basically 10 years, and has even sometimes used -CURRENT during that time
(with full knowledge that running THAT is, indeed, ALPHA code!)

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread Volker
On 2006-09-11 01:33, 'Anubhav A.' wrote:
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Volker thusly...
>> we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software which 
>> has
>> been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
> 
> Recently i read about which is more than "hello-world" ...
> 
>   They Write the Right Stuff
>   http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html
> 
> 
> ... but you did ask.
> 
> 
>   - Parv
> 

Interesting article but I really do not believe even the shuttle
software is 100% bug free. Just because there has been only one bug
found in the last version, does not mean it's really guaranteed to
be bug free. It's just: No one experienced one and no one discovered
one more. On the other side they do not implement much new features
every day and they do not have to care about hardware and market
changes every other day.

I suspect a lot of trouble even for NASA's mission does come from
software bugs and who knows how many lifes can be accounted for
software bugs. Remembering the first launch of a Ariane-5 rocket? It
has been self destroyed because of nothing but a software bug. Or
what about the first NAVY combat ship w/ steering controlled by
Windows NT? Out of control by a blue screen...

A developer can't always foresee the environment where his code will
later work in and that is even causing trouble.

And again, errors and mistakes are human. And those who shout out
"why didn't you test enough" should ask themself, how much have THEY
contributed to the community? The hackers are contributing enough
(my view) and are really doing a good job.

I do not care about HOW MANY bugs a beta quality piece of software
does contain but what IMHO matters is the timeframe to FIX them and
the FreeBSD project and other OS communities are good in that.

Greetings,

Volker
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 07:33:25PM -0400, 'Anubhav A.' wrote:
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Volker thusly...
> >
> > we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software which 
> > has
> > been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
> 
> Recently i read about which is more than "hello-world" ...
> 
>   They Write the Right Stuff
>   http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html
> 
> 
> ... but you did ask.

--
This software is bug-free. It is perfect, as perfect as human beings
have achieved. Consider these stats : the last three versions of the
program -- each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last
11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors.
--

But that just proves the point: despite all that careful engineering,
"one error each" and "a total of 17 errors" != "bug-free".

Kris


pgp7MKkCGgGI8.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Bug-free software (Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!)

2006-09-10 Thread 'Anubhav A.'
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Volker thusly...
>
> we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software which has
> been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking

Recently i read about which is more than "hello-world" ...

  They Write the Right Stuff
  http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html


... but you did ask.


  - Parv

-- 

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Volker

> This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was 
> that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed 
> stable ... and yes, I do run stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the 
> occasional 'oopses', but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient 
> testing", IMHO, doesn't classify as an 'oops' 
> 

Guys,

we're talking about software. Have you ever seen a piece of software
which has been really bug-free? Not the hello-world, I'm talking
about real software.

Also, you should never go with -STABLE on a production server. I'm
sure this has been made clear in the handbook. If it's really a that
import server in production use, go with a RELEASE. -STABLE is not a
technology playground as CURRENT but should be seen as a BETA
testing system. If that's not the case, then why use RELEASE at all?

Sure you may blame a developer for not testing enough but you're on
your own if you use beta quality software on your production
systems. As a developer I've seen many bugs which haven't been found
during testing and I know it's nearly impossible to find _all_ bugs
while testing. I've seen applications failing just because the user
typed the wrong key at the wrong time (or an unexpected key).

As a user I'm thankful for bugs being fast fixed bugs but on the
other side I really know what I'm doing when using -STABLE software
on my system. I do see this as a give-back to the community to find
bugs early before -RELEASE.

Also keep in mind most kernel hackers do kernel hacking in their
spare time. Everyone using FreeBSD (or any other OS system) is
profiting from their spare time and it's unfair to be not that polite.

And back to the issue: The gmirror bug has already been fixed and I
posted a note to the ML hours before the first "who the f... did
cause that bug" post. A short look into ML postings would have made
this thread needless.

If you blame developers, then please shut off your computer.

my2ct

Volker

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Gary Palmer
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:11:22PM +, Michael Abbott wrote:
> >Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!
> 
> Eh?  T?

cd /usr/src
cat CVS/Tag

CVS places a "T" infront of the tag name in the Tag file.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Scott Robbins
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:11:22PM +, Michael Abbott wrote:
> >>You can track changes to a particular release - say by using
> >>RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still
> >>say you are tracking STABLE?
> >If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
> >tracking -STABLE.
> 
> Damn, I'm confused now.  Let me try and get this straight:


Perhaps this might help?

http://home.nyc.rr.com/computertaijutsu/release.html


-- 

Scott Robbins

PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

Buffy: Well, that works out great. You won't tell anyone
that I'm the Slayer, and I won't tell anyone you're a moron.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Colin Percival
Michael Abbott wrote:
> Damn, I'm confused now.  Let me try and get this straight:
> 
> CURRENT
> This is, by definition, broken a good part of the time, and is what
> it says, namely current, ie work in progress.

Yes.

> STABLE
> This is broken some of the time and .. uh .. isn't really all that
> stable, actually.

"STABLE" means "you can update FreeBSD along this branch without needing
to recompile applications or kernel modules".  This means that companies
can ship binary drivers for their hardware and say "this driver will work
on FreeBSD 6.x" (which isn't possible on Linux).

The fact that there are occasionally bugs introduced... well, that's an
inevitable consequence of the stable branches being development branches.

> RELENG_n_m
> This is completely stable and only tracks security fixes.

Security fixes and "critical errata".  The requirements for something
being committed to such a branch after the release are that:
1. It must be an important bugfix, and
2. I must be absolutely certain that nothing bad will ever happen as a
result of someone updating a FreeBSD n.m system to the latest updates on 
RELENG_n_m.

> RELENG_n (RELENG_6 at the moment)
> Has somebody just said that RELENG_6 = STABLE?

Yes.

> I'm going to guess then that RELENG_7 is CURRENT.
> No, this doesn't make sense to me at all.

RELENG_7 doesn't exist yet.  RELENG_7 will be 7-STABLE once it exists,
some time in 2007.

Colin Percival

___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Michael Abbott

You can track changes to a particular release - say by using
RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still
say you are tracking STABLE?

If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
tracking -STABLE.


Damn, I'm confused now.  Let me try and get this straight:

CURRENT
	This is, by definition, broken a good part of the time, and is 
what it says, namely current, ie work in progress.


STABLE
	This is broken some of the time and .. uh .. isn't really all that 
stable, actually.


RELENG_n_m
This is completely stable and only tracks security fixes.

RELENG_n (RELENG_6 at the moment)
	Has somebody just said that RELENG_6 = STABLE?  I'm going to guess 
then that RELENG_7 is CURRENT.

No, this doesn't make sense to me at all.


Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!


Eh?  T?
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Reko Turja

From: "Karl Denninger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:39 PM
Yes it is, in the general case; in any event if you track RELENG_6_1 
you will
get no bug fixes in general - security related items to filter back 
down but
in general bug reports posted against a -RELEASE are, if addressed, 
put into

-STABLE.



You would like untested fixes to hit the release version first? By the 
way, possible breakage of STABLE due MFC process was announced a good 
while ago...


-Reko 


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 02:36:31PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 01:13:31PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 03:21:33PM +, Patrick J Okui wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >Once the -RELEASE branch is taken, code updates there .
> > > >
> > > 
> > > I take it you haven't read the text in the handbook that has been 
> > > linked to by a few posters.
> > > 
> > > You can track changes to a particular release - say by using 
> > > RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still 
> > > say you are tracking STABLE?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
> > tracking -STABLE.
> > 
> > Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!
> 
> Not the question he asked, please re-read.
> 
> Kris

Yes it is, in the general case; in any event if you track RELENG_6_1 you will
get no bug fixes in general - security related items to filter back down but
in general bug reports posted against a -RELEASE are, if addressed, put into
-STABLE.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 01:13:31PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 03:21:33PM +, Patrick J Okui wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >Once the -RELEASE branch is taken, code updates there .
> > >
> > 
> > I take it you haven't read the text in the handbook that has been 
> > linked to by a few posters.
> > 
> > You can track changes to a particular release - say by using 
> > RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still 
> > say you are tracking STABLE?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
> tracking -STABLE.
> 
> Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!

Not the question he asked, please re-read.

Kris


pgpnBuAGsmW2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 03:21:33PM +, Patrick J Okui wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> >
> >Once the -RELEASE branch is taken, code updates there .
> >
> 
> I take it you haven't read the text in the handbook that has been 
> linked to by a few posters.
> 
> You can track changes to a particular release - say by using 
> RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still 
> say you are tracking STABLE?

Yes.

If I track RELENG_6 (once 6.0-RELEASE has gone out) then I'm by definition
tracking -STABLE.

Indeed, the current tag on my CVS tree is TRELENG_6!

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


RE: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Christopher Schulte
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick J Okui
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 10:22 AM
> To: Karl Denninger
> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: AGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!
> 
> You can track changes to a particular release - say by using
> RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you 
> still say you are tracking STABLE?

Well, that depends.

For security and "critical fixes" (as the handbook phrases it) you can
track RELENG_6_1 (in the case of 6.1-RELEASE) and be happy.

But what happens if the needed fix isn't security or "critical" in the
minds of the FreeBSD developers?  At that point you either need to wait
for the next RELEASE, manually merge fixes into your production source
(which depending on the fix(s) could be non-trivial) or cross your
fingers and follow -STABLE.

This problem isn't specific to FreeBSD (or unix in general) by Any
means, of course.

Sure, we could broaden the scope of RELENG_X_Y.  Or introduce a new
branch that's closer to -STABLE yet tuned for something like, "security,
critical and major fixes" for production systems.  I'm not sure either
of those options are preferable, would be effective in alleviating the
problem, or even workable in the first place.

Personally, I've been served quite well for many years with the current
configuration.  Since I don't track -STABLE on anything important (or
more accurately have yet NEEDED to do so), I've never been hit by any of
these transient issues that crop up from time to time and can elicit
loud complaints.

--Chris
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Patrick J Okui

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:



Once the -RELEASE branch is taken, code updates there .



I take it you haven't read the text in the handbook that has been 
linked to by a few posters.


You can track changes to a particular release - say by using 
RELENG_6_1 rather than RELENG_6. In which case, would you still 
say you are tracking STABLE?


--
patrick
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-10 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 11:59:10AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> > Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
> 
>   No. STABLE means STABLE API.
> 
>   If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
>   stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
>   BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
>   in current which is permanent ALPHA code.
> 
>   Most of the time beta code is perfectly fine to run but
>   occasionally things will go wrong.  The point of BETA code
>   is to catch those errors that escape detection in the ALPHA
>   stage before they make it into a release.  That is done by
>   having a wider diversity of clients run the BETA code.
> 
>   Occasionally you have bugs that make it through both the ALPHA
>   and BETA stages.

Of course this assumes that -RELEASE is actually stable and fully suitable 
for production use.

As soon as you find a bug that you can't live with in -RELEASE, you have darn
few options other than to updade to -STABLE, especially if there's a commit in
the tree that appears to fix the bug in -STABLE.

Once the -RELEASE branch is taken, code updates there .

Not even Microsoft expects people to live from release to release without bug
fixes!

In the 10 years I've been running FreeBSD in a production environment I've yet
to find a -RELEASE branch that is actually suitable for production use for the
duration between -RELEASEs; inevitably a bug that I can't live with requires
that I update the source, and what does one update to in this instance?

-STABLE.

If the project wishes to have -RELEASE be "the stable point" then bug
fixes (once FULLY tested) must be back-ported to -RELEASE - otherwise the
appearance of a bug you can't live with gives you no other real option than to
run the -STABLE track.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 12:55:42AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 
> >On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>
> >>This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
> >>that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
> >>stable ...
> >
> >You mean like in the FreeBSD handbook?  It's not anyone else's fault
> >if you haven't read the documentation.
> >
> > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html
> 
> I swear, the last time I searched for a definition of STABLE vs 
> CURRENT/HEAD, that wsan't there ... but, granted, that was a very very 
> long time ago ...

Well, now you know.  Might be a good idea to reread the handbook and
other documentation to bring yourself up to date on anything else you
might have missed too.

Kris


pgpNQkqiGvM8J.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:


On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:


This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...


You mean like in the FreeBSD handbook?  It's not anyone else's fault
if you haven't read the documentation.

 http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html


I swear, the last time I searched for a definition of STABLE vs 
CURRENT/HEAD, that wsan't there ... but, granted, that was a very very 
long time ago ...




Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Linimon wrote:


On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...


http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/decision-points.html


but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't
classify as an 'oops' 


You've already made this point -- 3 times.  What would you like us to do
now, punish the committer?


Huh?  My first post on this thread was in defense of MFCng into STABLE and 
acknowledging that 'mistakes happen', and then this one ...



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was 
> that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed 
> stable ...

You mean like in the FreeBSD handbook?  It's not anyone else's fault
if you haven't read the documentation.

  http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/current-stable.html

Kris


pgpJvUwwnTWKq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Mark Linimon
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was 
> that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed 
> stable ...

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/decision-points.html

> but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient testing", IMHO, doesn't
> classify as an 'oops' 

You've already made this point -- 3 times.  What would you like us to do
now, punish the committer?

Simply reiterating your criticism and unhappiness isn't going to do anything
to fix this problem (for which, of course, a fix has already been made), or
the next one(s) either.

It was an error, it's been fixed, may I suggest we move on to the next bug?

mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Marc G. Fournier


This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was 
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed 
stable ... and yes, I do run stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the 
occasional 'oopses', but "blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient 
testing", IMHO, doesn't classify as an 'oops' 




On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Mark Andrews wrote:




Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?


No. STABLE means STABLE API.

If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
in current which is permanent ALPHA code.

Most of the time beta code is perfectly fine to run but
occasionally things will go wrong.  The point of BETA code
is to catch those errors that escape detection in the ALPHA
stage before they make it into a release.  That is done by
having a wider diversity of clients run the BETA code.

Occasionally you have bugs that make it through both the ALPHA
and BETA stages.

Mark
--
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DHCP.  Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"




Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Mark Andrews

> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?

No. STABLE means STABLE API.

If you want stable code you run releases.  Between releases
stable can become unstable.  Think of stable as permanent
BETA code.  Changes have passed the first level of testing
in current which is permanent ALPHA code.

Most of the time beta code is perfectly fine to run but
occasionally things will go wrong.  The point of BETA code
is to catch those errors that escape detection in the ALPHA
stage before they make it into a release.  That is done by
having a wider diversity of clients run the BETA code.

Occasionally you have bugs that make it through both the ALPHA
and BETA stages.

Mark
--
ISC Training!  October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area,
covering topics from DNS to DHCP.  Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Karl Denninger
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 04:04:40PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
> 
> >Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
> >
> >C'mon guys.  This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when 
> >changes are MFC'd into production branches of the code.  This kind of 
> >thing is expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.
> >
> >How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this 
> >once it was put in?  All of 30 seconds?
> 
> In this case, I don't know ... but I *do* know that I do hit a fair 
> number of "bugs" that a simple 30 second test won't uncover ... a 
> production box *can* and *will* tend to hit bugs that a test box won't, 
> just because of the randomness of what is running on it ... trust me, I've 
> had my share of headaches over the years, but it doesn't (and won't) deter 
> me from running -STABLE, for the simple fact that if I don't, there is a 
> good chance that those bugs that I do get "lucky" enough to hit won't get 
> hit by anyone else and *someone* had to get it ;)

Well sure, if its one of those "corner cases" I understand.  This is the price
of not doing FULL regression testing, and expecting that from a free project
is unreasonable.  Hell, you don't get that from Micro$oft, why would anyone
think you'd get it here?

But in this situation its not a corner case.  I've got a (different) open issue 
on 6.x where it appears that SELECT on serial lines is badly screwed; this may
be specific to the ROCKETPORT cards and it may not - not real sure yet.  I
reported that one recently too, and its giving me a 5-alarm migrane at the
moment trying to find a workaround that actually functions.  I can't find
anything in the commit logs that would lead me to believe that the ttyio 
code has changed in a way that should have caused this, and the driver 
hasn't been updated either.  That's a head-scratcher for a whole host
of reasons with the first one being that I don't have the first clue 
where to look for the source of trouble (to use a pun.)

Its not as simple as "serial I/O doesn't work at all"; it appears to be
specific to using VMIN, non-blocking I/O and select() to handle multiple
sources of input coming into a single thread.  Now how often do people do
this?  I dunno. but what I do know is that the common "single thread"
application works fine on the same port

This is different.  We're talking about the very basic functionality of 
the gmirror system - to be able to rebuild a disk that is out of sync.

In this case my "notice" of the problem came in the form of a production
machine that went down overnight - apparently, it would seem, during an
attempt to back itself up using that functionality.  It went down HARD
and corrupted the root partition directory structure badly enough to prevent
fsck from being able to rebuild it on an automated restart attempt, and what
was worse, the bug caused the system to block in I/O permanently as of course
when it came back up from the crash it tried to resync the out-of-date
providers, making the reboot hang!  So what I had was a production machine 
that couldn't be brought back up without significant "wizardry" at the 
physical console, and frankly, what it LOOKED LIKE at first blush was a
 disk failure - one of those "that's not supposed to happen" things.

I was very close to putting the day-old backup disk online - I'm darn glad I
didn't, because the bug would have likely trashed THAT one too, and then I'd
be both a day back on the data AND have an unstable system!

Not good, especially when the commit log on the last delta to the gmirror code
was basically "removed uses of the F-word in comments; we're nice people".

Uh, obviously not.

The obvious question is how does the protocol for committing changes to
-STABLE work if the committer isn't required to first test the basic function
set of the module he/she modifies, on -STABLE, before those changes are MFC'd 
back into the -STABLE tree?

I see that the (actual) code changes were backed out (apparently yesterday)
and I've rebuilt the kernel with those, which has put the immediate fire out,
but this is one of those instances where the usual "check and balance" process
that is  as being present in -STABLE failed badly, and it failed
simply due to a lack of checking at all!

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Marc G. Fournier

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:


Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?

C'mon guys.  This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when 
changes are MFC'd into production branches of the code.  This kind of 
thing is expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.


How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this 
once it was put in?  All of 30 seconds?


In this case, I don't know ... but I *do* know that I do hit a fair 
number of "bugs" that a simple 30 second test won't uncover ... a 
production box *can* and *will* tend to hit bugs that a test box won't, 
just because of the randomness of what is running on it ... trust me, I've 
had my share of headaches over the years, but it doesn't (and won't) deter 
me from running -STABLE, for the simple fact that if I don't, there is a 
good chance that those bugs that I do get "lucky" enough to hit won't get 
hit by anyone else and *someone* had to get it ;)



Marc G. Fournier   Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED]  MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yahoo . yscrappy   Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:28:31PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
> 
> C'mon guys.  This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when changes
> are MFC'd into production branches of the code.  This kind of thing is
> expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.
> 
> How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this once 
> it was put in?  All of 30 seconds?

Please try to calm down, getting angry on the mailing list is only
going to make everyone else angry too.

Kris


pgpTIX8aPwctO.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Karl Denninger
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?

C'mon guys.  This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when changes
are MFC'd into production branches of the code.  This kind of thing is
expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.

How long would it have taken to actually test the change and detect this once 
it was put in?  All of 30 seconds?

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 08:23:10PM +0200, Max Laier wrote:
> On Saturday 09 September 2006 19:38, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > This is not cool folks.
> 
> Want a refund?
> 
> -- 
> /"\  Best regards,  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> \ /  Max Laier  | ICQ #67774661
>  X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> / \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | Against HTML Mail and News




___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Max Laier
On Saturday 09 September 2006 19:38, Karl Denninger wrote:
> This is not cool folks.

Want a refund?

-- 
/"\  Best regards,  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ /  Max Laier  | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | Against HTML Mail and News


pgpabFdsW8NAv.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Patrick M. Hausen
Hi!

On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
> This is not cool folks.
> ...

I experienced the same problem - luckily on a lab machine.

As much as I understand your anger, -stable is not guaranteed
bug free.

And to answer your question: RELENG_6_1 doesn't show this problem.
I recommend running RELENG_X_Y instead of RELENG_X for
recent values of X and Y on production systems, anyway.

HTH,

Patrick M. Hausen
Leiter Netzwerke und Sicherheit
-- 
punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung
Vorholzstr. 25Tel. 0721 9109 -0 Fax: -100
76137 Karlsruhe   http://punkt.de
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


ARRRRGH! Guys, who's breaking -STABLE's GMIRROR code?!

2006-09-09 Thread Karl Denninger
This is not cool folks.

Anyone know what I have to roll back to - and what files I have to roll back -
to stop this [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  tty ad4  ad6twed0 cpu
 tin tout  KB/t tps  MB/s   KB/t tps  MB/s   KB/t tps  MB/s  us ni sy in id
 224  453  0.61   0  0.00  120.16 427 50.06   0.61   0  0.00   2  0  4  2 92

See that?  There's nothing really running.  What I tried to do was 
"gmirror insert b500 ad4s1"

The command took, but NO IO WAS TAKEN TO THE TARGET DRIVE FOR REBUILDING; the
SOURCE disk was locked in a 100% I/O run, and after stopping the rebuild THE
I/O INFINITE LOOP IS STILL GOING ON!

I had a PRODUCTION MACHINE go down on my last night over this when it
attempted to run its backup process and wedged due to process table overflow;
the first attempt apparently never finished the day before and the second, to
a SECOND backup disk (I have a rolling disk backup system using GMIRROR's
resync) caused the system to wedge in an I/O wait.

This was also not cleanly restartable, as the root partition had multiple
error on it that fsck -p couldn't fix.

This is a SEVERE emergency in that anyone who has a disk that has to be
rebuilt under -STABLE right now (sources as of 7 September) is screwed, blued
and tattooed.

That PRODUCTION machine is running UNPROTECTED right now (no mirroring) as a
consequence of this, and I can neither back it up using the usual mirror NOR
restore its redundancy!

I see only one comment about GMIRROR changes in the commitlogs since 9/1, and
it claims to be (mostly) cosmetic.

Obviously not!

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.netMy home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org   Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://genesis3.blogspot.comMusings Of A Sentient Mind


___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"