From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Thu Aug 23 17:55:52 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@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 DABB51093B07; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 17:55:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 395A17D4F0; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 17:55:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w7NHtlxl090703; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:55:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w7NHtlQS090702; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:55:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201808231755.w7NHtlQS090702@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r338172 - Now deprecating DRM In-Reply-To: To: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 10:55:47 -0700 (PDT) CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" , Matt Macy , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Reply-To: rgrimes@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 17:55:53 -0000 [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:08 AM Rodney W. Grimes < > freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > I think this deprecation is a rather serious deviation > > from the stated policy, in that 0 notification was > > made, core IMHO, has overstepped some boundaries in > > that respect. These policies are promises to the > > downstream consumers, and violating them is very > > poor planning. > > > > Despite what the commit said, core didn't actually formally approve it > before the fact. That was one of the many miscommunications surrounding > this episode. Well I would say inlight of that fact a revert should be a no questions asked, doing much else risks build breakage within hours of code freeze. > I don't think you'll find anybody who would say this was well planned or > well executed. Agreed, so lets be simple in correcting it? >From some investigation even the claim that "in base drm conflicts with ports drm" is not totally true, you just have to take a few steps to be sure you do not load the base versions, and do load the ports version. There is still time to revert this, add the gone_in(13) glue and have 12.0 go out in that state. I am concerned that if 1 person came forward right off the bat with this change, and we try to do something that takes care of just that issue we are going to have others come forward in time with similiar issues and we are going to look bad for failing to follow our own published guidelines. I see no smoking gun reason that this code has to die today, the ports are already setup with instructions on how to deal with the inbase drm. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org