From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 12 17:22:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mobile.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9410E37B4EC; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:22:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobile.wemm.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1D1MIU56283; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:22:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200102130122.f1D1MIU56283@mobile.wemm.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Mike Smith Cc: Alex Zepeda , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... In-Reply-To: <200102130113.f1D1D6m02339@mass.dis.org> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:22:17 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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