Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:20:31 +0200 From: Andrea Campi <andrea@webcom.it> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include netdb.h Message-ID: <20031024162031.GA14990@webcom.it> In-Reply-To: <yge3cdjxewm.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <200310231754.h9NHsH1k069480@repoman.freebsd.org> <20031024000432.GF609@wombat.fafoe.narf.at> <20031024073208.GB17866@webcom.it> <yge3cdjxewm.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:39:53PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> andrea> I also wonder at this "to be removed on". Shouldn't this be under BURN_BRIDGES,
> andrea> or anyway handled in the traditional way: deprecate it in 5-RELEASE, remove in 6?
>
> I'll remove it before 5-CURRENT becomes 5-STABLE. 5.3-RELEASE should
> be released without having EAI_NODATA.
That's exactly the point I'm raising. I will admit to not knowing the
complete background, but it seems to me an odd way of dealing with this.
On the one hand, it doesn't follow POLA and established project practice.
OTOH, I don't really see where the magic date came from. As a minimum,
it would be better to spell it like you just did: "remove before 5-STABLE".
That's just my 2 cent worth anyway, and I won't push this any further.
Bye,
Andrea
--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031024162031.GA14990>