From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 25 03:22:54 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15FE5EF7; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:22:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "vps1.elischer.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C36EE6E9; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jre-mbp.elischer.org (ppp121-45-234-114.lns20.per1.internode.on.net [121.45.234.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s9P3MmQL077666 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:22:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <544B1782.5040307@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:22:42 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Wemm , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs References: <691948956.6194558.1414090646089.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <5206562.372QOO418I@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <5206562.372QOO418I@overcee.wemm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Rick Macklem , Robert Watson X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 03:22:54 -0000 On 10/25/14, 5:49 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Friday, October 24, 2014 04:43:28 PM Robert Watson wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> Someone just pinged me on this and I figured I should bring it up. >>> >>> 1 - Is anyone out there still using oldnfs due to unresolved >>> >>> problems with the new one? (I am not aware of any outstanding >>> issues in the new nfs that don't exist in the oldnfs.) >>> >>> 2 - Does anyone see a problem with getting rid of oldnfs for >>> >>> FreebSD-11? >>> >>> 3 - If I get rid of it in -head, I can do it either in mid-December >>> >>> or mid-April. (I can't do commits during the winter.) >>> Does anyone have a rough idea when the 11.0 release cycle will >>> start, so I can choose which of the above would be preferable? >>> (I figured I'd wait until after the last 10.n release that happens >>> >>> before 11.0, since it will be easier to MFC before the removal of >>> oldnfs.) >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any comments, rick >>> ps: John, I've cc'd you since I thought you are the guy most likely to >>> >>> need to do commits/MFCs to oldnfs. >> I think removing it is fine, but as early as possible (as John says) to give >> our -CURRENT users time to stop working around bugs and start reporting >> them >> :-). > We still use oldnfs at work, even on 11.x, but I'm very much in favor of > getting back to one single copy. It seems like there's too many things that > are fixed in one stack or the other., We need to stop splitting effort. > > I've asked Rick before to remove it and get back to just "nfs" rather than > "newnfs" etc. > We (work) have a lot of changes to the old nfs server in 8 We will have to port them all to the new server I guess as we go forward.. Rick, maybe I can run the diff past you privately for comment.