From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 30 23:15:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C8216A41F for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:15:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mail2.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E7A6443D49 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:15:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 52171 invoked by uid 399); 30 Oct 2005 23:15:54 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.101?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 30 Oct 2005 23:15:54 -0000 Message-ID: <43655427.9060804@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:15:51 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxime Henrion References: <200510271734.j9RHYZAk015054@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051030062148.GA76667@dragon.NUXI.org> <4364D017.1050605@samsco.org> <20051030231108.GQ1327@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <20051030231108.GQ1327@elvis.mu.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Scott Long , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf DEFAULTS GENERIC X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:15:57 -0000 Maxime Henrion wrote: > While I'm all for making FreeBSD less prone to errors like the one > discussed here, I feel that having: a DEFAULTS file, a good comment > explaining what purpose it serves in it, an explicit include DEFAULTS in > GENERIC and a big scary comment next to it inclde explaining why one > should not remove it ought to be sufficient. I think you're right, at around the 6.2-RELEASE mark or so. I think that our developers tend to dramatically overestimate the amount of stuff that the average user needs to keep track of, especially when we're talking one or two major revision bumps. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection