From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 12 16:29:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8398E37B503 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:29:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from zippy.pacbell.net ([207.214.149.200]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0G8O007G4652Z7@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for current@freebsd.org; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:17:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by zippy.pacbell.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0E67187F; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:20:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:20:04 -0800 From: Alex Zepeda Subject: Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... In-reply-to: <200102122220.f1CMKUm01666@mass.dis.org>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800 To: current@freebsd.org Message-id: <20010212162004.A9106@zippy.mybox.zip> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i References: <200102122220.f1CMKUm01666@mass.dis.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new > structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE > structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release cycle? Seems to me that a new major number is far cleaner than a gross hack. - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message