From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 15 21:51: 3 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 106A537B401; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:51:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826F343EB2; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:51:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange (melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h0G5p0nN039974 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:51:00 -0800 (PST)?g (envelope-from sam@errno.com)œ X-Authentication-Warning: ebb.errno.com: Host melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82] claimed to be melange Message-ID: <1d8501c2bd23$3f9af4a0$5a557f42@errno.com> From: "Sam Leffler" To: Cc: References: <19068.1042660548@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: HEADSUP: DEVFS and GEOM mandatorification timeline. Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:51:00 -0800 Organization: Errno Consulting MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 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 > >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