Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:21:35 -0700 From: Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.ORG>, re@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include string.h src/lib/libc/string Makefile.inc memchr.3 memrchr.c src/sys/sys param.h Message-ID: <483C977F.20105@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <483C7FF2.6000607@FreeBSD.org> References: <200805272004.m4RK4SZt029194@repoman.freebsd.org> <483C7FF2.6000607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Maxim Sobolev wrote: | Xin LI wrote: |> delphij 2008-05-27 20:04:27 UTC |> |> FreeBSD src repository |> |> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_6) |> include string.h lib/libc/string |> Makefile.inc memchr.3 sys/sys param.h Added |> files: (Branch: RELENG_6) |> lib/libc/string memrchr.c Log: |> MFC: Add memrchr(3). | | I think this is not very good idea to MFC that into stable releases 6.x | and 7.x. The reason is that configure scripts for some packages might | detect up this API and enable it. Which means that some binary-only | packages build for say 6.4 won't work on 6.3 and down. AFAIK, both | forward and backward compatibility is required (or at least desired?) | for stable branches. | | While it's "nice-to-have" feature, I see no pressing need to MFC this | interface. I don't think so, perhaps I am wrong, but do we really want absolutely no *new* features on -STABLE branches? I think this case is different from ctype(3) fix which is widely used API and a change of existing interface by adding new dependency to a symbol that is not exist in the older FreeBSD releases. It will really scare me away from any new features if we can not add an new interface in RELENG_* trees even if they have no outside dependencies, if that's the policy of ABI compatibility guidelines then I'd be happy to revert these MFC's, but having something can only run on -CURRENT does not sound like a good idea, and maintaining in-tree alternative patches for different branches for such things is really painful and will likely reduce the lifespan of given -STABLE branches, is these our goal and should be kept in mind when maintaining code in RELENG_* branches? Cheers, - -- ** Help China's quake relief at http://www.redcross.org.cn/ |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkg8l38ACgkQi+vbBBjt66CQpwCfas0aJ1oHSGKaSZxuu4qaCMGR ZXYAniELjdnA0zuw2LmGkk2wXCZ7GFLW =dFm9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483C977F.20105>