From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 27 20:55:42 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB93B16A417; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6784F13C481; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:55:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l7RKtVnI016686; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:55:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20070827.141125.-1573947069.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: References: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827190100.GY87451@elvis.mu.org> <200708271529.42264.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827.141125.-1573947069.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:55:42 -0000 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200708271529.42264.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin 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