From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 15 11:56:16 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BD737B401 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B76043F13 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:56:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@freebsd.org) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0FJtm9O019069; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:55:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@freebsd.org) To: "Sam Leffler" Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. From: phk@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:48:49 PST." <19a601c2bccf$1fdf3850$5a557f42@errno.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:55:48 +0100 Message-ID: <19068.1042660548@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <19a601c2bccf$1fdf3850$5a557f42@errno.com>, "Sam Leffler" writes: >> All the central developers I have talked to agree that this is the >> direction we are going. Unless I am Terrybly mistaken, only the >> speed of adoption is up for discussion at this point, the direction >> is not. > >You and I talked about this briefly so I'll just voice my opinion publicly. I very much appreciate your input, private as well as publically. It was partly because of our discussion I decided to take this public so we can get the issue resolved. >I believe changes of this sort should wait until _after_ 5.1 is cut. This >assumes that 5.1 is the "performance and stability" release that compels >people to move production machines to a 5.x code base. If 5.1 is this kind >of release then I'd want developers to focus their energy on performance and >stability issues and not on changes of this sort. My concern is that >yanking this code may expose problems that destabilize the system. While >this certainly needs to be done I would like to see 5.1 come out quickly; so >anything that might cause a slip should be considered carefully. I don't really see how this can jeoparidize 5.1: All we do is remove a couple of badly supported functions at the administrative level: Not one single .c or .h file needs to be touched, only sys/conf and sys/i386/conf/LINT will be affected. -- 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-arch" in the body of the message