Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708271648570.28508@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20070827.141125.-1573947069.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> <200708271529.42264.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827.141125.-1573947069.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200708271529.42264.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > : And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After all, we > : aren't really trying to get people running -current on production systems. > > I think it is OK for -current to have rougher edges. I don't think it > is OK to require -current to have rougher edges. I think we can agree on that! I also think there is some confusion over whether adding ABI changes to an existing symbol version would force us to rebuild ports. It doesn't. Once symbol versioning is released in 7.0, we can create a new version (FBSD_1.1, or add to the existing FBSD_1.1 depending on how the FTS stuff goes) and add all the (non-overlapping) ABI changes we want to it _without_ having to rebuild ports. This is a tremendous advantage over -current as it is today. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0708271648570.28508>