Brad Knowles <email@example.com> writes:
>> We've sent such already, and it matches the log comment...
> So you've already talked to Greg about this issue and he's not
> interested in back-porting this particular code change to -STABLE?
It wasn't that recent. I wasn't the one who sent the emails, but my
understanding is that he wanted more specifics, and I wasn't sure if we were
ever able to give him a reproducible case (though we were able to reproduce
it ourselves). Last I heard on this was a couple of weeks ago.
In the meantime, we're not completely without vinum. If I'm careful, I
can have one-strike-you're-out mirrors that will at least get me past the
first disk crash, and then I can copy the files to new hardware.
Then I saw the recent commits and became hopeful that my problems were
over. My assumption was that new features may be only for CURRENT, but that
bugfixes (and the log labels this as such) are generally added to STABLE.
Considering the extent of this particular bug, this seems like just the sort
of back-porting issue.
> If so, then I have to wonder if vinum is going to be removed
> entirely from -STABLE, because without something a basic as this, I
> don't see how you can consider it "stable".
Quite so. So Greg, can we expect to see this in CURRENT?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message