AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20090330110525.5b3a6c73@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:mail.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>,<brian.stark@onstor.com>,<raj.kumar@onstor.com>,<maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>,<sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@exch1.onstor.net/INBOX	0	2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8B577B6@exch1.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:05:55 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: Jonathan Goldick <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>
Cc: Brian Stark <brian.stark@onstor.com>, Raj Kumar <raj.kumar@onstor.com>,
 Maxim Kozlovsky <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>, Sandrine Boulanger
 <sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: MF bugs for 4.0.2/3.3.3
Message-ID: <20090330110555.5d0eb564@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8B577B6@exch1.onstor.net>
References: <2779531E7C760D4491C96305019FEEB52AC8B577B6@exch1.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:53:16 -0700 Jonathan Goldick
<jonathan.goldick@onstor.com> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> TED00026475 abort function,  assert or verify macros on linux produce core with invalid stacktrace
> is the only one left in Dev.  Can we get an ETA so we can determine if we need to slip the release or move it out of the release entirely?

I don't believe this should go into the release, but I'm willing to
hear other opinions.  As outlined to me, the fix would either be to
change the C library, or change how we define our ASSERT function and
places that call abort() directly.  These would seem to be fairly risky
in exchange for what we might get, because it's very difficult to test
that you haven't broken anything in all the places that this would
affect.  The ASSERT is bloody everywhere.

I recommend that we modify the C library after the latest updates to it
have been checked in, and then live with that for a few months in
Engineering before shipping it.

> Brian, Max,
> I assume we would hold the release for the proposed Cougar ECC fix.  Is that done or is Max going to make some additions?
> 
> Raj,
> We still have 4 bugs in MI state.  Can we get some assessment on whether they are really MF bugs and should hold up the release?
> 
> Sub 9 was intended to be the RC candidate.  Clearly we need a sub 10 for the ECC fixes but we really need to get this wrapped up.  The hope is to start the 1 week Mightydog soak this week and release no later than Mid April.
> 
> 
> 
