From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 27 21:15:32 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 C603416A46B; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:15:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3251813C45B; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 21:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.8k2) with ESMTP id 205672099-1834499 for multiple; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:15:50 -0400 Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7RLFT67030319; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:15:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Daniel Eischen Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:15:20 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <20070827.141125.-1573947069.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708271715.21462.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:15:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.3/4078/Mon Aug 27 16:37:54 2007 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" , 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 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 21:15:32 -0000 On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote: > 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. So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD? That seems to contradict your earlier changes as you are now saying use 1.1 for fts(3), etc. Also since you mentioned MFC'ing one ABI (say 1.5) but not others (1.2-1.4), that implies each change in HEAD has its own first-level version? -- John Baldwin