Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:00:54 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, d@delphij.net, Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/locale utf8.c Message-ID: <1193414454.7390.20.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <200710261141.51639.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200710150951.l9F9pUm7026506@repoman.freebsd.org> <1193347863.93167.11.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <20071026145347.GA92529@dragon.NUXI.org> <200710261141.51639.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:41 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 26 October 2007 10:53:47 am David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:31:03PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote:
> > > What we need to try and avoid unless *absolutely* *necessary* is the
> > > part Scott quoted above - binaries compiled on 6.3-REL should work on
> > > 6.2-REL unless there was a really big issue and the solution to that
> > > issue required us to break that. The reason is simple, people should be
> > > able to continue running 6.2-REL "for a while" and still be able to
> > > update their packages from packages-6-stable even after portmgr@ starts
> > > using a 6.3-REL base for the builds
> >
> > This is news to me.
> > I've never heard that we're that concerned with forward compatability
> > even on a RELENG branch. We do not break the ABI for backwards
> > compatability - in that everything (including kernel modules) that ran on
> > 6.2 must run on 6.3.
>
> Agreed. The solution to the shared /usr/local problem is to use the oldest
> version for /usr/local. That has always been the case. Forwards
> compatiblity (what you are asking for) is significantly harder to guarantee
> since accurately predicting the future isn't much a science.
>
Yeah, sorry. I guess I've been a bit grumpy the past couple days and
over-stated the "*absolutely* *necessary*" part above. It should have
read "*necessary*", not "*absolutely* *necessary*".
I'd just like us to question if it's necessary here. Is there a good
enough way to do this without causing the breakage? I sorta liked
Warren's question. Does this stuff need to be inlined and if not would
that solution avoid the breakage?
Accurately predicting the future is impossible (IHMO, I guess others
disagree). Breaking forwards compatibility if necessary will happen.
Doing it when there is an alternative that's viable and wouldn't break
it is what should be avoided.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBHIg82/G14VSmup/YRAuRXAJ9oJVZgppxZlBpRhguL4E/wtMIkYgCfStZB
zgdKzH4kbe56pvt9WtoOCVc=
=KKE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1193414454.7390.20.camel>