Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:49:05 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FCP-0101: Deprecating most 10/100 Ethernet drivers Message-ID: <CANCZdfp-3uZUNLkp6EYcnmGX53Cjs_uVxYoct=tMzW%2B025L8kg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201810041534.w94FYUJ5006835@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <20181004151720.GC74146@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <201810041534.w94FYUJ5006835@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:35 AM Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 05:07:20PM +0200, Joel Dahl wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 09:05:16PM +0000, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > The criteria for exception are: > > > > - Popular in applications where it is likely to be deployed beyond > the > > > > support lifetime of FreeBSD 12 (late 2023). > > > > - 5 reports of uses in the wild on machines running FreeBSD 12 > will be > > > > deemed satisfy the "popular" > > > > requirement. > > > > > > Why doesn't reports of uses on machines running FreeBSD 10/11 count? I > don't > > > get it. 12.0 isn't even out yet, and most of our users are probably not > > > running CURRENT. As I wrote in an earlier email, I have lots of these > cards > > > running in production - and most of them are on FreeBSD 11. They'll > > > likely be upgraded to 12.1 in the future (but probably not 12.0 - I > usually > > > skip .0 releases). But doing the jump to CURRENT/12 now is just out of > the > > > question - these are production systems after all. > > > > For the current poll, good faith intent to upgrade is fine. > > What I am finding very bothersome at this point is that a great > miss understanding has been conveyed onto the users by the > statement that "core has discussed this and we plan to proceed > as proposed" > > From a posting by Warner that statement is incorrect, this WHOLE > fcp-101 is up for discussion and shaping. For the record, I never said anything to the contrary. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's not helpful. I said it was in the community feedback phase. That's part of the process: changing things as the community gives feedback. > Right here above is an example > of one thing that needs to be corrected in the FSP, the criteria > is incorrectly stated if infact as "good faith intenet to upgrade > is fine." > That's part of the community feedback process. We add things, we adjust things. I never once said anything to the contrary in this thread. > I also saw another person state that the "5" user number appears > to be very arbitrary. I agree. > It's totally arbitrary. What's your point? We have to start somewhere, and so far the data is splitting nicely between 0 or 1 users and > 5 if my counts are correct. It appears, so far, to be a useful first order sorting function. > We should NOT be taking the pole until the FCP itself is approved... > as altering the FCP could greatly effect the outcome of that pole. > I disagree. We can run the two in parallel unless we hit something major. So far, I've seen nothing that suggests the polling done so far is invalid. Warnerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfp-3uZUNLkp6EYcnmGX53Cjs_uVxYoct=tMzW%2B025L8kg>