From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Feb 15 20:57:34 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D092487ED for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:57:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48KjHf4qn5z459w for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:57:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com (mail-qt1-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kevans) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 935DB1ABF2 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:57:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kevans@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id d9so9429114qte.12 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWCxZAabjPud0ZZj67Io1RM6hBMazlL/i7z/VUQn0ESM4p1jjSX AucXpbSwX93xOBnHblB2laZPhO1j8kOMDq7EQm0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqypkfPpy2ndCXYbEf6INB7LB0cdvOXV2dpNRfSvVqbooCcWek7Rtqsymjvh6Qzuh2Sy0ecidE3dDIdbbEvXdgY= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:739a:: with SMTP id t26mr5316695qtp.53.1581800254118; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202002151936.01FJaUj4048415@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <202002151936.01FJaUj4048415@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> From: Kyle Evans Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 14:57:19 -0600 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Return of config files to ^/etc To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Shawn Webb , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 20:57:34 -0000 On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 1:36 PM Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 9:13 AM Shawn Webb wrote: > > > > > > Hey Kyle, > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 04:42:15PM -0600, Kyle Evans wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I've organized a review[0] to return most config files back to etc/. > > I read the review, I have issues I need to post in it, but at the > moment dont have write access to reviews.freebsd.org due to broken > https mangling by a captive portal. > I will certainly be waiting on plenty of feedback for this one. > > Something that I've intentionally not pitched yet (to avoid conflating > > major issues) is the possibility of MFC'ing the move back to > > stable/12. It's feasible, but requires more care and attention than it > > does in head/. IIRC, when you attempt to merge an svn mv/cp to another > > branch, svn will stage it as a copy from the version in head/ that > > lives at the destination. So, when you try to MFC a mv/cp, you're > > effectively MFC'ing all changes before it unless you take care to > > assess and, as needed, revert those in the final diff. > > > > I will volunteer to do this work if the move back happens, but I will > > raise that as a follow-up issue. I suspect that it will be desired if > > we do the move in head, to ease the pain of merging back to our most > > recent branch. > > I'll volunteer to help you do that work if that move should need > to happen. > Thanks- I appreciate that! =-) > You may actually simplify the process if you use reverts to undo the > change in ^head and merge the reverts back, I think that *might* > just do the right things, but I would need to run some test cases. > I have a fear (completely unfounded- I make no claims that this is correct or has ever happened) that svn would do the completely wrong thing and try to restore the old version. The more I think about it, the more I suspect that most folks that want this would also want it to be MFC'd to eliminate the friction, so I'll do some inspection up-front to see if we'd really run into problems here. Fortunately, there's only one branch that we need to worry about this for that's only about one year old. I suspect we could get away with MFC'ing any stragglers up-front, as I don't recall any major groundbreaking stuff happening in etc/ since 12 branched...but my memory kinda sucks. Thanks, Kyle Evans