Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:31:29 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: netgraph into -stable. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9911161731220.10800-100000@semuta.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911161720180.25805-100000@current1.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What's the potential breakage? On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Julian Elischer wrote: > > I admit that it doesn't seem a minor addition, but > I'd like ot get netgraph down -nto 3.x now that it has been shaken down a > bit in 4.x > > reasons: > 1/ DSL in Canada is now switching rapidly to PPPoE. > 2/ PPP will start using it soon (other than with pppoe) > and we'd like ONE version not 2 for Brian to maintain. > 3/ ISPs who may wan tto use the PPPOE server side are generally running > 3.x, not 4.x > > > Supporting facts: > Netgraph is written to generally be non intrusive. > No code is changed in the non "options NETGRAPH" case and only minor > changes are made in normal code paths in the NETGRAPH case. > (with the exception of the if_sr and if_ar drivers) > > I might hold off on some of the more intrusive of those > changes (e.g. no real need to add it to netstat immediatly) > which will not really effect the functionality. > > > And last but not least: > We are actually developing Netgraph under 3.3 so we are already keeping > two source trees in sync, 3.3. and 4.0 so we might as well let others get > at it. > > Anyone violently object? > > Julian > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9911161731220.10800-100000>