Re: Release 2.12 - 3.0
--20cf300e544720e88004af97da5e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I vote for (A)
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Alex Hornung <ahornung@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> for those too lazy to read most of this mail, skip to "In a summary".
>
> In its current state, 2.12 has fairly major problems in the VM subsystem
> that can lead to random bus faults, etc. The underlying issue is that
> pages randomly become zero-filled. Symptoms seem to include random full
> machine lockups, random bus faults (particularly popular during pkgsrc
> building), etc. In my opinion releasing 2.12 like this is a no-go.
>
> On the bright side, Matt has been working hard on effectively rewriting
> the locking of the VM system. The outcome is a huge improvement in
> performance and, incidentally, something that fixes most bugs, including
> the above. But reality is, as awesome as the changes are, they need
> testing, and a lot of it. There is no way we can ship this any time soon
> as a release.
>
> ====
>
> In a summary: 2.12 is broken and the fixes for it need plenty of testing
> (months of testing).
>
> There are a few solutions that have been proposed for this, and I'd like
> people to vote on them, since we really need to make a decision ASAP:
>
> A) Scrap the 2.12 release completely (since it's broken anyway and I
> don't think releasing something that we know is broken is a good idea)
> and simply continue our release schedule with 3.0 some time in the new
> year.
>
> B) Revert some of the VM fixes that went into 2.12 that actually made
> the problem worse. This also takes time and a lot of testing, but should
> make it possible to release something less broken (but still broken) in
> about a month's time.
>
> C) Release 3.0 pretty much now, but risk releasing something broken,
> too, since the major VM changes also require major testing - for which
> we simply don't have time in this short timeframe.
>
> D) Release the broken 2.12 and let users "suck it up".
>
> ====
>
> My vote goes to (A). I feel it is the only way to:
> 1) avoid shipping broken software (option C and D), and
> 2) avoid wasting time on stabilizing something that is already obsolete
> (option B).
>
>
> Cheers,
> Alex Hornung
>
--20cf300e544720e88004af97da5e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I vote for (A)<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12=
:09 PM, Alex Hornung <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:ahornung@gmail=
..com">ahornung@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex;">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
for those too lazy to read most of this mail, skip to "In a summary&qu=
ot;.<br>
<br>
In its current state, 2.12 has fairly major problems in the VM subsystem<br=
>
that can lead to random bus faults, etc. The underlying issue is that<br>
pages randomly become zero-filled. Symptoms seem to include random full<br>
machine lockups, random bus faults (particularly popular during pkgsrc<br>
building), etc. In my opinion releasing 2.12 like this is a no-go.<br>
<br>
On the bright side, Matt has been working hard on effectively rewriting<br>
the locking of the VM system. The outcome is a huge improvement in<br>
performance and, incidentally, something that fixes most bugs, including<br=
>
the above. But reality is, as awesome as the changes are, they need<br>
testing, and a lot of it. There is no way we can ship this any time soon<br=
>
as a release.<br>
<br>
=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
In a summary: 2.12 is broken and the fixes for it need plenty of testing<br=
>
(months of testing).<br>
<br>
There are a few solutions that have been proposed for this, and I'd lik=
e<br>
people to vote on them, since we really need to make a decision ASAP:<br>
<br>
A) Scrap the 2.12 release completely (since it's broken anyway and I<br=
>
don't think releasing something that we know is broken is a good idea)<=
br>
and simply continue our release schedule with 3.0 some time in the new year=
..<br>
<br>
B) Revert some of the VM fixes that went into 2.12 that actually made<br>
the problem worse. This also takes time and a lot of testing, but should<br=
>
make it possible to release something less broken (but still broken) in<br>
about a month's time.<br>
<br>
C) Release 3.0 pretty much now, but risk releasing something broken,<br>
too, since the major VM changes also require major testing - for which<br>
we simply don't have time in this short timeframe.<br>
<br>
D) Release the broken 2.12 and let users "suck it up".<br>
<br>
=3D=3D=3D=3D<br>
<br>
My vote goes to (A). I feel it is the only way to:<br>
1) avoid shipping broken software (option C and D), and<br>
2) avoid wasting time on stabilizing something that is already obsolete<br>
(option B).<br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<font color=3D"#888888">Alex Hornung<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>
--20cf300e544720e88004af97da5e--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 10 之 19 篇)：