Subject: Re: Nightmare File Corruptions with 1.6Q - FFS?
To: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/11/2003 23:53:34
Thus spake Simon Burge ("SB> ") sometime Tomorrow...
SB> The reason for kernel version bumps is when kernel structures change
SB> that would make LKMs incompatible. I'm not disagreeing that a bump
SB> would have been a handy indicator in this case, but strictly speaking a
SB> bump wasn't needed.
That's a pretty lax call; I'd say that anything which affects kernel
structures changing AT ALL, let alone on a significant level such as,
oh, say, FILE SYSTEM STRUCTURE CHANGES, warrants a kernel indicator.
I do hope there's a branch tag somewhere indicating that 'ufs2 starts
here'. I just backdated my source tree to 4/4/2003 23:00, just to make
sure that I'm safe and can build to stability until the ufs2 (which
should REALLY probably be called ffs4, but "hey, we didn't name it!")
stuff can get fixed.
Don't get me wrong -- I, too, am glad to have seen it incorporated (thank
you, Frank!), but I think some standard steps in the arena of release
management would have been appropriate, even if this is not a formal
release per se.
At the very least it would have made it much easier to pinpoint,
"This is the Last Known Good configuration. Get your sources from
NetBSD: For The Network Generation