Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 05:45:17 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.org> To: "Kenneth D. Merry" <ken@plutotech.com> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/camcontrol camcontrol.8 camcontrol.c src/sys/cam cam_ccb.h cam_sim.c cam_sim.h cam_xpt.c src/sys/cam/sc Message-ID: <19990510054516.V76212@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199905081909.NAA64618@panzer.plutotech.com>; from Kenneth D. Merry on Sat, May 08, 1999 at 01:09:36PM -0600 References: <19990508122349.L76212@bitbox.follo.net> <199905081909.NAA64618@panzer.plutotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 01:09:36PM -0600, Kenneth D. Merry wrote: > Eivind Eklund wrote... > > I wasn't saying that it wasn't the right decision - I was just > > registering surprise. > > > > I think it would be appropriate to send a message to -announce, and it > > definately needs to go into the release notes for 3.2. Breaking > > binary compatibility in -stable is supposed to be an event. > > I don't think it's a big enough event to bother people on -announce. If > people are running -stable, they should read the -stable list. I sent mail > there, so those folks should be informed of the situation. This does not match with the guidelines we've given to our users previously. We've said that they were adviced to read the -stable list, but it wasn't a requirement for following the branch. Adding it as a requirement makes -stable much less useful; IMO, we don't even *want* all users of -stable to read the -stable list, as that would create much too much noise on the list. I will repeat myself: Breaking binary compatibility in -stable is *supposed to be an event*. This means that if you are doing it, you'd better be doing it for a reason that is good enough to send a message to -announce. > And this isn't the only thing that'll break binary compatibility in > 3.2. I fixed some problems in the devstat code back in February (just > after 3.1 went out, I think) that will also break ports that use the > devstat code. Ouch. > I think people should probably expect some interfaces to be broken between > releases, since a completely stagnant userland<->kernel interface for > everything would probably indicate a dead branch. Then all of RELENG_2_2 was dead. AFAIR, the only breaks of binary compatibility there was ipfw (broken twice, due to people ignoring the requirement not to break binary compatibility); at no time was anything done that would break the installed packages. People, we are not supposed to be creating interfaces that *need* to break binary compatibility. It isn't as if the techniques for creating extensible interfaces weren't well known 20 years ago; there is no reason not to use them today. > It might be worth mentioning this stuff in the release notes, though. It is 100% necessary that this be mentioned in the release notes or backed out; if it isn't worth mentioning in the release notes, it definately isn't worth breaking binary compatibility for. Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990510054516.V76212>