From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 25 21:52:37 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECC6E16A419; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:52:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A669413C45B; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:52:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l7PLpYc8074105; Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:51:34 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:51:38 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20070825.155138.-1548240116.imp@bsdimp.com> To: eischen@vigrid.com From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com> <1188071752.1853.44.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:51:34 -0600 (MDT) Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 21:52:38 -0000 In message: Daniel Eischen writes: : On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote: : : > : > [ 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: : : No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed : an -arch or -current. Approval for committing still has to go through : re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere : prior to being sent to re@ approval. Can you be specific? Also, we shouldn't be making it this hard to use versioned symbols. The last thing we want is for it to be perceived as a fight to get one into the tree. If that's the perception, then people are less likely to do the right thing in the future. We should instead embrace the change, document the right thing to do and use it as a dry-run to work out the kinks in the process. Yar's change fell into a grey area. Reasonable people could differ as to the time that the ABI became 'official'. Is it with the release? Or is it when symbol versioning was turned on? Or maybe when the code freeze happened. Clearly it wasn't before symbol versioning was enabled, and it can't be after the release. Why not now? Why not let the RE@ make the call when he reasonably believes the right time is? We delegated the release process to him and his team so the whole community doesn't micromanage it to death, introduce changes at a bad time, etc, etc, etc. Why can't we let him decide the exact boundaries and make this grey area less grey? Warner