From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 28 16:21:09 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FB933C4; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246CD20F; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:21:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D12C8B984; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Rick Macklem Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 11:47:12 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20140415; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <1773502329.7493477.1414275856279.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1773502329.7493477.1414275856279.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201410281147.12525.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-current , Robert Watson X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:21:09 -0000 On Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:24:16 pm Rick Macklem wrote: > Kostik wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > > > Someone just pinged me on this and I figured I should bring it > > > > up. > > > > > > > > 1 - Is anyone out there still using oldnfs due to unresolved > > > > problems with the new one? (I am not aware of any outstanding > > > > issues in the new nfs that don't exist in the oldnfs.) > > > > 2 - Does anyone see a problem with getting rid of oldnfs for > > > > FreebSD-11? > > > > 3 - If I get rid of it in -head, I can do it either in > > > > mid-December > > > > or mid-April. (I can't do commits during the winter.) > > > > Does anyone have a rough idea when the 11.0 release cycle will > > > > start, so I can choose which of the above would be preferable? > > > > (I figured I'd wait until after the last 10.n release that > > > > happens > > > > before 11.0, since it will be easier to MFC before the > > > > removal of > > > > oldnfs.) > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any comments, rick > > > > ps: John, I've cc'd you since I thought you are the guy most > > > > likely to > > > > need to do commits/MFCs to oldnfs. > > > > > > I think removing it is fine, but as early as possible (as John > > > says) to give > > > our -CURRENT users time to stop working around bugs and start > > > reporting them > > > :-). > > > > I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and > > client, > > around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which > > still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, > > oldnfs > > have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for > > developers. > > > > I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. > > Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. > > > Well, the only commits I've done to "old" were bugfixes that applied > to both old and new. > > John has been the main "fix the old NFS" guy lately. So, John, do you > anticipate more patches to the old NFS that need to be MFC'd down? I do not, no. -- John Baldwin