From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 17 22:44:32 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63DB23F; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97CFE14F0; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:44:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rBHMiVYG063270; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:44:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id rBHMiV77063267; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:44:31 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:44:31 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Removing temporarily outdated Handbook instructions Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:44:31 -0700 (MST) Cc: Adrian Chadd X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:44:33 -0000 In recent discussion on the -current mailing list, it was pointed out that using lagg(4) for failover from wired to wireless networking is not fully functional: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-December/047259.html I know that Dru told me she'd always had problems with it back in June, a surprise to me since it had worked for me before. It didn't work then when I tried to show her... My question is the right way to remove this from the Handbook. It can be commented out, but that leaves stale contents in the file. Is it better to remove the code and trust the repository to keep the old version available for recall when lagg(4) works for that again?