Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:23:38 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Trish Lynch <trish@bsdunix.net>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.x compatibilty.. Was: MFC of rcNG? Message-ID: <3D0F7AAA.110E0D8@FreeBSD.org> References: <20681.1024423602@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sheldon Hearn wrote: > How about this... > > We commit to keeping rcOLD working on RELENG_4 to the end of > RELENG_4. That's a given. > We commit to making rcNG available as an experimental option > on RELENG_4 well before 4.7-RELEASE, as long as we think it's > feasible to do so. For sufficiently conservative definitions of "feasible," ok. > We commit to keeping rcOLD working on HEAD / RELENG_5 as long as > it's feasible to do so. Wadda ya mean "we" kemo sabe? It's already going to be enough work to keep rcng up to date on 5.x, and the old system up to date on 4.x. Maintainging 3 seperate rc systems on 2 widely divergent branches doesn't sound like fun to me. I would like to reiterate my previous points... namely that for the vast majority of users, this change will be almost unnoticed. They will still have the familiar rc.conf[.local] files, and whether we have rcold in there or not, they will still have to update them for 5.x. Further confusing the issue by having two different systems in the base won't help, it'll only hurt. I would also like to suggest at this point that we hold off on further discussion of this nature till we flip the switch to make rc_ng the default. Rather than speculate as to how big a hill we have to climb, let's actually start the trip, and see how it looks after day 1. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D0F7AAA.110E0D8>