From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Thu Oct 4 15:49:18 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420A510AF914 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:49:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCB4774F44 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:49:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id z16-v6so8289528iol.6 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Y9R71KugAC+KDyAVk+sGzwQiRfyf9/Rmb5gaaBpOQMY=; b=ZgBNasgMHPTeyNW/sml5I/3dUCXRhHFgArT1rLcYb1hjm3Hy3juw/M3e7Wwt0+t4mH njzaVwgTWrk7A04nod2P3wtfoNdtyfcykQc5lr7WbkeU6oL50AqCjkjAEfcItkDV+ZNS d2VyrUqD/OEXtpvA8jVfEQdNxzmkFcc88UwW75kmYEniA236VzwcSBQl84BDLFjdPX4o DEjIqye0W9B7OE+LMd5cRnQe2eAryRSwrd1H+qhEj8ALY+HF2Ae395QDhPktsg11S09R lAjn8bwFXVhTkNn2AfebIlIYLK4iVGpYw95bgXpegBbTNaOkU8pZ7DMLLyw29X4oub7t 5e/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Y9R71KugAC+KDyAVk+sGzwQiRfyf9/Rmb5gaaBpOQMY=; b=gnZuHTEA3J0Aw/oPhjg+QJS1tye+T4NxGr2YqnIsf0rYtSuTwIs8zxCoGzx3EbIT4q xCxm2f18Ks1NyQX2rBTvF1/FKNhMH2PAB3TkkYnXV4ssjl/n0NSgGaG916iObrW1AUNX EyNkAPZkROSH6N2rafZtC9L5BXwokiIK6cQrTksWzS4k0fKs+ewmhfNk9vkQca2xZC+x 4hfvq936l6DTDu2O5airhL771hv5SeuDn6QdLyavQOe46XxZcMwG9ETkUHXY0W2TPl8N BNz4lfqRAdYc08VgEPnmVZ9iaj7hYwMd3nwOmYxD6ZBM6Wpd/ShgM7i0KuWSp8vGYgto +FUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohFHdWRnUsvZt3d6+06JPH9qWk5Tt9CwNgc24egGdYiL/CXXU2T fswt21wI5YftCgTUWlKwNf99/0ufoLsGfjiQnmzKow== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62FBGru3z3tFR8RkiLc+6ZgAPCsHrwGwY5jpMh6veIUUGR5N21KZ8yV92f8ZwYSTdiATLnc5M16iY1/sD32lWk= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:d004:: with SMTP id x4-v6mr4727466ioa.299.1538668157054; Thu, 04 Oct 2018 08:49:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181004151720.GC74146@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <201810041534.w94FYUJ5006835@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <201810041534.w94FYUJ5006835@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:49:05 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FCP-0101: Deprecating most 10/100 Ethernet drivers To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Brooks Davis , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.27 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:49:18 -0000 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. Warner