From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 7 15:20:50 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCAE1065676; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:20:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@freebsd.org) Received: from karen.lavabit.com (karen.lavabit.com [72.249.41.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8042D8FC14; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:20:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e.earth.lavabit.com (e.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.14]) by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF8F1CF181; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 10:20:43 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 10.0.10.3 (54.81.54.77.rev.vodafone.pt [77.54.81.54]) by lavabit.com with ESMTP id 7X0A0C08OQMU; Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:20:41 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Rui Paulo In-Reply-To: <201007071012.10206.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:20:38 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <04991DD5-F22D-4F4E-8E33-89DE566DFB30@FreeBSD.org> References: <201007071012.10206.jhb@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cleaning up the CDDL import mess X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:20:50 -0000 On 7 Jul 2010, at 15:12, John Baldwin wrote: > I think it should be fine to remove vendor-cddl. It would be useful = to get > the ZFS bits the correspond to our current ZFS bits committed into the > vendor/opensolaris and vendor-sys/opensolaris trees and to sync up the = merge > info. >=20 > However, one caveat with the ZFS bits is that we may want to keep ZFS = and > DTrace independent in that you don't want to have to force an upgrade = of ZFS=20 > just to get newer DTrace bits and vice versa. In that sense, it may = make=20 > sense to store the vendor DTrace and ZFS bits in separate trees. I'm = not sure=20 > how practical that is (e.g. if they share common code). ZFS doesn't use any code in the vendor area. It's all imported "by hand" = in Perforce and then merged to HEAD, "by hand" too. So, unless the ZFS = team wants to start using real vendor imports instead of what they have = been doing, there's no such problem as "common code". If you are advocating that we should do a vendor import of ZFS, I agree. = If you're just saying that you want to fix the mergeinfo in ZFS, that is = not going to be enough because most of the ZFS code is in HEAD, not in = the vendor branch. Regarding DTrace, a lot of it has been copied to HEAD without a proper = vendor import, but some of bits were vendor imported, as you may know. What I really wanted to see for DTrace was a real vendor import of all = the necessary DTrace code, merged all to cddl/contrib and then we would = edit cddl/contrib to port DTrace to FreeBSD (since DTrace is already = ported, we would just copy the stuff outside cddl/contrib to = cddl/contrib). As an example, consider the DTrace module. We have sys/cddl/contrib with = several headers and whatnot, but the real code lives in = sys/cddl/dev/dtrace. This is not how we have been doing vendor branches = with other external contributions.=20 Of course it may be too late now. Regards, -- Rui Paulo