On Dec 23, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > Wilko Bulte wrote: >> Quoting Rink Springer, who wrote on Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 05:23:36PM >> +0100 .. >>> Hi people, >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:40:10PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >>>> We're going to usher in the New Year with a new usb stack. >>>> >>>> Now is the time to test, test, test. >>>> >>>> It is also the time to point out anything missing from usb2 that >>>> is in usb1. >>>> >>>> In two weeks, on Jan 3rd I will switch the GENERIC kernel to use >>>> usb2. >>>> >>>> The old usb code will remain in case there is any fallout. >>>> >>>> Depending on how this trial goes we will hopefully move to the new >>>> stack entirely within a few weeks after bug reports start dying >>>> down. >>> For what it's worth, I think this is *way* too early to be even >>> considering this; there is still massive fundamental work being >>> performed on the new stack (which reminds me that I really should >>> get >>> back to my permission patches soonish), but that is not the only >>> issue. >> >> Guys.. is there any reason why this needs to be rushed in over the >> Christmas >> break? Getting it in the tree, fine. But making USB2 the default so >> quickly does not appear to be proper engineering procedure. >> >> The days that CURRENT was broken for long periods is not something >> the >> project wants to get back to. The discussions sofar do not make me >> believe >> this will be a smooth transition, it seems it will need testing and >> fixing for >> a reasonable (considerable?) period. > > Agreed. For desktop users, sysutils/hal is currently broken with > usb2. > It's on my todo list to fix, but I may not have time to do it in the > next two weeks. I know this may seem minor considering other issues, > but people used to automounting USB media in their desktop won't > think so. > > Joe > Given the amount of problems that there are reported on various sources (usb->serial converters not working etc), I think we should provide a base where at least 95% of the things that we ship are working by default. I have seen advises that we should disable some kernel builds and add stuff via modules. I do not think that is the way to go for something which people normally 'take for granted'. I would like to see the code mature in the current form, gets it's developer attention and updates (and yeah there might be painful updates, even for hps, live with them in order to get this thing going as strong as possible). In the past (imo) we had several project sites on www.freebsd.org that listed our projects, and the milestones to take and open items. Is it an idea to send doc_at_ (or me whatever) a list of open items that need attention, that we document on the site, and only change default behaviour if enough bullets had been fired (read: if enough items had been fixed). That way there is a hardcopy of what needs attention, it's clear for anyone which items that need attention, and if everyone steps up, there is no one that can complain that his arguments aren't listed there and no one that can say that he/she didn't know about the arguments. Thnx, Remko -- /"\ Best regards, | remko_at_FreeBSD.org \ / Remko Lodder | remko_at_EFnet X http://www.evilcoder.org/ | / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and NewsReceived on Tue Dec 23 2008 - 18:30:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:39 UTC