From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 19 22:53:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2391437B401 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net (stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA8143FAF for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:53:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-uinj93o.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.164.120] helo=mindspring.com) by stork.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 19TEqN-0000L2-00; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:53:51 -0700 Message-ID: <3EF2A12D.58A9524E@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 22:52:45 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Matthew D. Fuller" References: <20030618174733.GC10127@over-yonder.net> <20030618190032.GG10127@over-yonder.net> <3EF1617F.C1EC5C12@mindspring.com> <20030619190346.GT10127@over-yonder.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a43e56f85eb96dc12c5e72f4cd7080ebe7350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: Meta: explain what where when? (was Re: userland accesstodevicesis moving!) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 05:53:54 -0000 "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > [ Bunches of in-depth detail-overview snipped ] > > The point of the exercise is not "marketing blurb". The point of the > exercise is to provide a hint so those of us whose heads only work in > userland-mode have a clue what this change is expected to mean to us. The author of a patch *ALWAYS* expects that things will be better than they were, and that *NO ONE* uses any feature that they want to deprecate, and *SOMETIMES* doesn't even agree that the things being deprecated were in fact features in the first place. The last case is the one which worries me most. -- Terry