Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

christos@ wrote:

> On Aug 1,  8:23pm, tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc
> 
> | I agree you can blame port masters if they leave their ports broken
> | more than *weeks*.
> 
> Fine, let's create an SLA then. Without an SLA, people don't know
> what's to be expected.

We already have Tier definitions.

In Tier II:
>> ... keeping it working is the responsibility of the user community. 
 :
>> If the port is not working at release time, a release is done
>> without the port and the port is moved down to the life support tier. 

In Tier III:
>> Organic ports get moved here if they do not complete a build for
>> 6 months or are otherwise suspected to be broken. 

Tier was introduced to reduce extra work for developers working
on Tier I ports.  If these are not enough for you, what's better?

> | But tier II ports are not primary even for their users and
> | few people check status everyday.
> | No chance to notice breakage without heads up about MI changes.
> 
> It is simple enough to arrange to be notified about autobuild failures.

All Tier II ports would have few MD new features, so
they don't need *daily* checks.  That's the point.

We can split autobuild script into Tier I/II ones
if people just want "0 failure" in daily buidable status.

> | If you claim port-masters must check buildable state *everyday*
> | against all MI changes without review or announcement, I'll resign
> | from all maintainership.
> 
> No, read above.

See above.  I'm afraid automated daily notifies which
won't stop until "real fix" are too annoying.

If it's sent ~bi-weelky like our gnats, it's fine for me.

> | Ok, but why should it be defined in MI sys/conf/Makefile.kern.inc?
> | 
> | Isn't it enought to define it per port (only tier I ports for example),
> | or per kernel config file for debug purpose?
> 
> Ideally we want to fix all the code ASAP.

If we have enough man power to make it possible?

But unfortunately we also need reasonable compromise
and I think that's the what the Tier system intended.

> | > | For sparc, the correct place seems in sparc/autoconf.c:bootstrap().
> | > | For sun2 it's sun2/locore2.c:_bootstrap().
> | > | Most other m68k ports foo_init() for pre-main initialization.
> | > 
> | > It would be nice if the individual port-masters would proactively
> | > check their ports so that they would remain buildable, and people
> | > who have cross-port knowledge like you, would work to harmonize
> | > these disparate and undocumented interfaces.
> | 
> | It would be nice if you guys asked proper persons to fix their ports
> | before you did try it yourself, so you don't have to check undocumented
> | MD kludges.
> | 
> | IMO "buildable but non-bootable state" is worse than non buildable.
> | It just hides actual problems and makes late debug harder.
> 
> It is not "you guys", it is just my fault. I don't know who you consider
> co-responsible. As far as that goes, I will agree. I definitely seem to
> have stirred the waters enough for the fix to be applied sooner than later,
> but this is not the way to operate.

I meant matt@, who committed the initial -fno-common change.
I don't know if it was done by Core's decision or not.

---
Izumi Tsutsui