Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:11:01 GMT From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <200702090011.l190B1EP024311@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: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Florent Thoumie <flz@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, 08 Feb 2007 16:07:42 -0800 Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: >> Brooks Davis wrote: >>> 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. >> Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but >> this is for gif_interfaces only, right? > > That's what I'd do. There's no reason to introduce support for an > instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since > gif_interfaces is the odd one out. Yes. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702090011.l190B1EP024311>