Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:55:52 -0400
From:      Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        src-committers@FreeBSD.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, alfred@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, deischen@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h
Message-ID:  <1188071752.1853.44.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708242252520.15344@sea.ntplx.net> <20070825053302.GG99474@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--=-hO+zUR6QMwcq2xPozEaa
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


[ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
read them if you really want to... ]

I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please.  My reasons are:

	1) He is following the exact procedure we will be using from now
	   on when an incompatible change to a library function is made
	   for the first time in HEAD between releases.  If, after
	   making this change, he was to decide that some other minor
	   change needed to be made and we hadn't done a release yet
	   it could be argued he shouldn't repeat this process and
	   that's just "Life using -current".  The arguments against
	   him doing this now have been based on "we already bumped
	   libc's version number so it's dealt with".  That's based
	   on our old way of doing things.  On can argue we begin the
	   new way of doing things after 7.0 is out the door but one
	   can argue equally well that it started at the point we
	   turned on symbol versioning.

	2) His timing with the fts(3) change was total coincidence but
	   I was happy to see it come along.  Symbol versioning is a
	   new thing for 7.0.  I'M HAPPY WE'RE HAVING A LIVE TEST OF
	   IT BEFORE WE DO THE RELEASE.  Even if Yar wasn't following
	   the procedures we'll normally be following post symbol
	   versioning being enabled (which I feel he is) I'm willing
	   to defend what he's doing now as a special case in the
	   interests of doing this live test of a new feature.

That said I'm with Warner and Yar (and I believe Alfred was in there
too).  Unless I'm drastically mistaken about what the "promises" of
symbol versioning had been Yar is currently following the exact
procedure someone doing this sort of change should be doing in HEAD now
that symbol versioning is enabled.  And as I said with my re@ hat on I'm
happy this is getting a "live test" before 7.0 gets released.

--=20
                                                Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodore Geisel |

--=-hO+zUR6QMwcq2xPozEaa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBG0IlI/G14VSmup/YRAqeLAJ9b3RTOAk6IprCz1PjucVGPqcJDPACdEm/g
xjVWU4FgTpwM/EVJ6uNj+Jg=
=cMJA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-hO+zUR6QMwcq2xPozEaa--




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188071752.1853.44.camel>