Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:51:00 -0800 From: "Sam Leffler" <sam@errno.com> To: <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: <arch@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Message-ID: <1d8501c2bd23$3f9af4a0$5a557f42@errno.com> References: <19068.1042660548@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >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.
The way you described it there was more to it than just removing config
glue. Why don't you create a patch for "removing each" so we can have
something concrete to look at?
My concern about all this is that we remove/stuff stuff only to find that
the code has been in use and there's nothing to replace it. You've done
this before and stated that the resulting pain is worthwhile because it
improves the overall quality of the system. That may be true--and this may
not happen this time--but, like I said, I think there's enough to do for 5.1
to not waste effort on something that can wait.
Sam
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?1d8501c2bd23$3f9af4a0$5a557f42>