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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfp-3uZUNLkp6EYcnmGX53Cjs_uVxYoct=tMzW%2B025L8kg>