From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 5 9:33:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DC337B403; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:33:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f55GXH170327; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 18:33:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: Dima Dorfman , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MFC'ing new md(4) functionality? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:31:49 PDT." <20010605013148.A49246@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 18:33:17 +0200 Message-ID: <70325.991758797@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20010605013148.A49246@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: >On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: >> Is there any reason not to MFC the new md(4) functionality > >Zero reason not to. Others see it differently, it would seriously break a lot of people who are using -stable in embedded applications. If we have abandoned the "no changes to API or ABI in -stable" paradigm, it would be a good idea, but it serious rains on that rule... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message