Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:56:25 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <20070827135625.GF29854@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708241819220.13181@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Q6STzHxy03qt/hK9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:50:19AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 24 August 2007 07:22:12 pm Warner Losh wrote: > > What's the overhead of having the transition crutch around for a > > while? The benefit is that people are less likely to screw up their > > systems at a time when we want to encourage people to upgrade so they > > can test the latest/greatest version. If it were 9 months after > > RELENG_6 was branched, and a long time to a release, then I'd be much > > more inclined to agree with the 'current is hard, so why spend > > engineering effort on making it easy' crowd than I would now that more > > of the world is watching and using it since we're in the glide path to > > beta1. > >=20 > > I don't see why we can't put the versioned symbols in, let everybody > > upgrade and then remove the old symbols after a big enough window has > > passed. It isn't like they are hurting anything by being there, is > > it? >=20 > Then why didn't we bump libc multiple times in a branch? It's the same > exact thing except more fine-grained. If it's ok to bump symbol > versions multiple times (remember, we've already done 1 bump by adding > versioning and going to libc.so.7) in a branch, then it should have been > ok to bump libc major numbers multiple times. >=20 > I agree with Dan that we are trying to build releases, and folks running > -current are expected to tolerate change during the current branch. Folks running -current are also committers that use -current to test as much as they can, but also to use it for day-to-day work. Isn't it why we have perforce and other policies, so that -current can be stable and usable? If we have tools that can help -current users to use the system smoothly, I'm all for using them. I can't imagine taking yet another two days and reinstalling all ports, just because -current users are not important. Of course -current users know how to deal with things like this, but that doesn't mean they have to if there is another way. The more surprises like that one, the less -current users we will have, which means the less testing. If there will be a need for me to reinstall all the ports I'll choose not to upgrade or downgrade to 6.x... --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --Q6STzHxy03qt/hK9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFG0tgJForvXbEpPzQRArPQAJ9SA0/bhD1+XXXYKIW6BRclOgeAnQCgpWhF t6SpM7AIWRNnrWuKfbecO30= =I3B1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q6STzHxy03qt/hK9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070827135625.GF29854>