From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 25 22:24:17 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92895D9C; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:24:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364D31EA; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 22:24:16 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAKEhTFSDaFve/2dsb2JhbABchD6DAtIdAoEbAX2EAwEBBCNWGw4KAgINGQJZBgGIU7QAlDYBAQEBAQEEAQEBAQEBAQEagSyPKDQHgneBVAW0D4QUIYF3gQMBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,788,1406606400"; d="scan'208";a="162255718" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 25 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462ACB4026; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Konstantin Belousov , John Baldwin Message-ID: <1773502329.7493477.1414275856279.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20141024161735.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.209] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.6_GA_2926 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.6_GA_2926) Cc: freebsd-current , 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 22:24:17 -0000 Kostik wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, 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 > > :-). > > 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. > Well, the only commits I've done to "old" were bugfixes that applied to both old and new. John has been the main "fix the old NFS" guy lately. So, John, do you anticipate more patches to the old NFS that need to be MFC'd down? Thanks, rick