Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:50:23 GMT From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <200702082350.l18NoNi7023084@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:47:37 -0600 On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > >> Brooks Davis wrote: > >> > >>> The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. > >>> I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces > >>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in > >>> CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. > >> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree > >> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and > >> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry > >> over usability. > > > > That would be fine. I don't really care as long as it's deprecated. > > > > FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually > > set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of > > effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen > > is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should > > be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it. > > Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an > error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was > planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message > saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in > both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but > we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7 > is branched. I'd say a warning in both. -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702082350.l18NoNi7023084>