On 12.01.2019 13:54, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 05:11:31AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: >> I'd like to suggest a possible solution: Go back to the old way, >> and announce the branch date in advance (with a reasonable >> lead time, not just a day or so, which would change nothing. >> Reasonable here is likely to be something like a month.) > > Yes, I'd like to do that. > > I was trying to come up with an official "must have" feature list, but > by now most of what I would have put there already made it into -current. > > The only thing that is still open and not exactly a chekpoint feature > is my personal perception that the aarch64 port (which will have its debut > with 9.0) could use a small bit of more stability. Due to lack of something > better my simple metric would be: number of ATF failures <= numer of ATF > failures on e.g. alpha or sparc64, and additionaly (quite egoistic) a fully > working XFce4 setup on my pinebook ;-) > > After having everything in place, releng would pick some arbitrary date > and if a that point all builds are green, create the branch. This date > should be published as early as possible, with a request to developers > NOT to rush in things shortly before the deadline. > > Martin > I'm investigating sigbus & vfork(2) issue with generation of core(5) file (it's not just a syscall called in a vfork(2)ed child that could be UB). Next I will work on aarch64 boot issues reported on qemu and push the integration of LLVM sanitizers into src/. I was asked to address the mentioned issues and I will rebase and finish my code for LLVM sanitizers.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature