Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:22:17 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Message-ID: <200102130122.f1D1MIU56283@mobile.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <200102130113.f1D1D6m02339@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> > > You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new
> > > structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE
> > > structure.
> >
> > How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they
> > really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release
> > cycle? Seems to me that a new major number is far cleaner than a gross hac
k.
>
> The major number has ALREADY BEEN BUMPED.
>
> The "gross hack" is a transitional step necessary for the upgrade path to
> work, and would be removed after it was no longer required.
The "gross hack" can *NEVER* be removed and will live on through 5.0-RELEASE
and 5.0-STABLE, because we *continue* to compile in the wrong sizes into
applications.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102130122.f1D1MIU56283>