Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:48:29 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs Message-ID: <20141024174829.GC1877@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com> References: <691948956.6194558.1414090646089.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410241641370.72164@fledge.watson.org> <20141024161735.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua> <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:42:20PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On 24 October 2014 12:17, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client, > > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, oldnfs > > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > > developers. > > > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. > > I only see real value in that if we're actually building and testing > it on HEAD on a regular basis though. If we don't build it by default > on HEAD and don't generally test it there, I think we're actually > worse off to commit changes to HEAD first and then MFC. We do build both (old) nfsclient and nfsserver, at least as modules.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141024174829.GC1877>