Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:46:51 +0000 From: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <45C77B9B.20403@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <45C77AFD.1050801@FreeBSD.org> References: <20061029010934.5afef73e.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200610281610.k9SGAIVb051055@freefall.freebsd.org> <20070129000459.b2dba4e0.nork@FreeBSD.org> <45C757FA.2000209@FreeBSD.org> <20070205163646.GB48768@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45C75E1F.2070709@FreeBSD.org> <45C77AFD.1050801@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Doug Barton wrote: > Florent Thoumie wrote: >> Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:14:50PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: >>>> Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:10:18 GMT >>>>> FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org wrote: >>>>>> Thank you very much for your problem report. >>>>>> It has the internal identification `conf/104884'. >>>>>> The individual assigned to look at your >>>>>> report is: freebsd-bugs. You can access the state of your problem >>>>>> report at any time >>>>>> via this link: >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104884 >>>>>>> Category: conf >>>>>>> Responsible: freebsd-bugs >>>>>>> Synopsis: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf >>>>>>> Arrival-Date: Sat Oct 28 16:10:18 GMT 2006 >>>>> I chased HEAD. Please see following patch. >>>>> Anyone, please handle this PR? >>>>> And I'll make a patch for 6-stable. >>>>> >>>> I've made my comments on this. Maybe someone else should review it? >>> It seems basicly fine and should be useful. (At least until someone >>> finally shoots the netgraph part of ng_fec in the head.) I'd like to >>> see "" be the offical way to not configure any fec interfaces. gif_up's >>> use of NO is a mistake (IMO). It would be OK to allow "NO" as an >>> undocumented synanim for "". >> >> Agreed, as said in my previous post. >> >> I think we could just set gif_interfaces and fec_interfaces to "" in >> -CURRENT and add the "NO" compatibility in RELENG_6 when MFC time comes? >> That would be a candidate for 7.0 RELNOTES. >> >> Does it make any sense to you? > > My instinct is to have it the other way around, with "NO" being the > default, and "" being a synonym. We've trained people that "NO" is the > way to turn things off with rc, and the one glaring exception to that > rule (sendmail) has caused an enormous amount of confusion over the years. > > Other than that, I have no objections here. IMHO, it makes sense to have "NO" as opposed to "YES". In this case, it's a list. So an empty list would be "", but keeping "NO"-compatibility for the -STABLE branch ensures POLA. At least that's how I see it. -- Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFx3uyMxEkbVFH3PQRCqhkAKCQBImTiFhsraqP5cUh45Y/C5MIhACeJupV NYtNF9lLKx9vyWC+JZHSr0E= =HVOK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45C77B9B.20403>