Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 19:44:55 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: MFC'ing new md(4) functionality? Message-ID: <20010607024455.9362D3E0B@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <200106061650.f56GoMl00438@billy-club.village.org>; from imp@village.org on "Wed, 06 Jun 2001 10:50:22 -0600"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh <imp@village.org> writes: > In message <70325.991758797@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > : In message <20010605013148.A49246@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: > : >On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > : >> Is there any reason not to MFC the new md(4) functionality > : > > : >Zero reason not to. > : > : Others see it differently, it would seriously break a lot of > : people who are using -stable in embedded applications. > : > : If we have abandoned the "no changes to API or ABI in -stable" > : paradigm, it would be a good idea, but it serious rains on that > : rule... > > I've stated in the past that removing mfs from stable is going to > cause me some grief. However, the addition of md won't so long as mfs > remains intact. I don't think anybody is even remotely suggesting that MFS be removed, but someone (other than you) might get bitten by a change of this sort. I guess it's just a matter of whether the new functionality (and giving people a head start integrating the new behavior into their systems) is worth burning however many people depend on the old behavior. Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org > > Warner > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010607024455.9362D3E0B>