Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 23:36:37 -0700 From: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r338172 - Now deprecating DRM Message-ID: <CAPrugNphHHQ4P=Fsm9cUtF_KUrGsKw%2BKJ-PpQo4hKE5oAuDc=Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201808231755.w7NHtlQS090702@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <CANCZdfrk4DRwT5Obuxj9VifVLrx_duLEU6W0OX3G-Fw2nYMusg@mail.gmail.com> <201808231755.w7NHtlQS090702@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rodney - we appreciate your emotional investment in the project. And as convenient as it would be for me to take all the blame the imminent removal of drm2 was communicated on public lists. Your soul contribution to the discussion was to bemoan the fact that i386 would no longer have special advantages over people using newer hardware. During this discussion you, RE, or core could have chimed in with guidelines for a smooth deprecation process. None of them did. To chime in now as if you were wounded by a rogue actor is extremely disingenuous. And as Kevin keeps point you keep pointing at strawmen. This isn't how we'll grow the user base. (Assuming that that's something you value as well). And please don't forget that process exists to serve users not for its own sake. Thanks for all of your efforts on our behalf. -M On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:08 AM Rodney W. Grimes < > > freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > I think this deprecation is a rather serious deviation > > > from the stated policy, in that 0 notification was > > > made, core IMHO, has overstepped some boundaries in > > > that respect. These policies are promises to the > > > downstream consumers, and violating them is very > > > poor planning. > > > > > > > Despite what the commit said, core didn't actually formally approve it > > before the fact. That was one of the many miscommunications surrounding > > this episode. > > Well I would say inlight of that fact a revert should be a no questions > asked, doing much else risks build breakage within hours of code freeze. > > > > I don't think you'll find anybody who would say this was well planned or > > well executed. > > Agreed, so lets be simple in correcting it? > > From some investigation even the claim that "in base drm conflicts with > ports drm" is not totally true, you just have to take a few steps to > be sure you do not load the base versions, and do load the ports version. > > There is still time to revert this, add the gone_in(13) glue and have > 12.0 go out in that state. > > I am concerned that if 1 person came forward right off the bat with > this change, and we try to do something that takes care of just that > issue we are going to have others come forward in time with similiar > issues and we are going to look bad for failing to follow our own > published guidelines. > > I see no smoking gun reason that this code has to die today, > the ports are already setup with instructions on how to deal > with the inbase drm. > > -- > Rod Grimes > rgrimes@freebsd.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPrugNphHHQ4P=Fsm9cUtF_KUrGsKw%2BKJ-PpQo4hKE5oAuDc=Q>