Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:33:22 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, eischen@vigrid.com, kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <200708270933.23751.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070825.155138.-1548240116.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708251703550.19091@sea.ntplx.net> <20070825.155138.-1548240116.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 25 August 2007 05:51:38 pm M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708251703550.19091@sea.ntplx.net> > Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> writes: > : On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote: > : > : > > : > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and > : > read them if you really want to... ] > : > > : > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are: > : > : No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed > : an -arch or -current. Approval for committing still has to go through > : re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere > : prior to being sent to re@ approval. > > Can you be specific? > > Also, we shouldn't be making it this hard to use versioned symbols. > The last thing we want is for it to be perceived as a fight to get one > into the tree. If that's the perception, then people are less likely > to do the right thing in the future. We should instead embrace the > change, document the right thing to do and use it as a dry-run to work > out the kinks in the process. > > Yar's change fell into a grey area. Reasonable people could differ as > to the time that the ABI became 'official'. Is it with the release? > Or is it when symbol versioning was turned on? Or maybe when the code > freeze happened. Clearly it wasn't before symbol versioning was > enabled, and it can't be after the release. Why not now? Why not let > the RE@ make the call when he reasonably believes the right time is? > We delegated the release process to him and his team so the whole > community doesn't micromanage it to death, introduce changes at a bad > time, etc, etc, etc. Why can't we let him decide the exact boundaries > and make this grey area less grey? It has been the release in the past, never really grey. I could see making it when RELENG_x is branched, but we haven't reached that point either. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708270933.23751.jhb>