Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:20:33 +0000
From:      Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
To:        Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r241896 - in head: . cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys share/man/man9 sys/cam/ctl sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/sys sys/cddl/contrib/openso...
Message-ID:  <CAJ-FndBRFJFZ_h_fY%2B=Wux_DfMr4V0RrqyiKPh64WmiTDm3o4g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK2BMK7W%2B0EqkRYyvRQoSAChdgcRJXZiSmfoE=Xj3evy4C7THQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201210221750.q9MHot26061585@svn.freebsd.org> <CAK2BMK5c==SJ%2BySe7S70ZJyph_2X%2BdU%2B9zBftdatWqTVsH5rsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCTQjxbhpv-nA_oiVcHbKxwvpG_0qN9Cr4HV7_xfSQbeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK2BMK7srogaYt6Y9fp=HYSY64NXwBSFDHTuXiMYhbPmOD2NAg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndDF%2BM_QALAuL_z9b5X_T4=En7Ek26u0kbqMEANcWLVcLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK2BMK7W%2B0EqkRYyvRQoSAChdgcRJXZiSmfoE=Xj3evy4C7THQ@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not wish to belabor the point; we all have better things to do
> with our time.  Hopefully this is my last message on the topic.
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> The point is that KPI/KBI of -CURRENT can change as long as
>> __FreeBSD_version is bumped (and if you really want to know my
>> opinion, I already see this as a forceful thing because it would not
>> be necessary in my mind, but I second the will of the majority of
>> developers). So, if the KPI/KBI changes all the thirdy part code,
>> ports and everything else must adapt.
>
> Yes, everything must adapt to changes in -current.  I am arguing that,
> if it is easy to do so, we should make the user experience for
> *ordinary users* running -current as nice as possible.  If we do not
> have ordinary users running current, then our code does not get
> real-world testing until RC builds, or even the .0 release.  I think
> it is well-accepted that we want to have the code in -current get
> real-world testing; making the user experience nicer helps this to
> happen.  To me, it seems that the user experience is nicer if the KPI
> change is delayed from the KBI change.  We have mechanisms in place
> that can enforce __FreeBSD_Version of kernel modules must match the
> version of the running kernel, so I do not see how this procedure
> would lead to silent binary incompatibility.

The courtesy you are mentioning here is the __FreeBSD_Version. Having
stricter rule would just meaning doing under-performing and unclean
job.

>
>> MPSAFE flag is not any longer supported and code needs to be ported
>> appropriately to -CURRENT interface.
>
> That is the present state of affairs, yes.  I am asking only, "think
> of the users; can we make things easier for them?".
> Maybe not in this case, but as something to keep in mind for the future.

I can understand your concern, but people using -CURRENT must be well
aware of the fact that this is a development branch and they cannot
expect too many safety belt mechanisms to be in place.

I think that the current model (break KBI/KPI at will, give
ports/thirdy part a way to recognize it via __FreeBSD_Version and move
on) is optimal because it doesn't limit the developer neither leaves
the user completely without a landmark on how to fix the problem.

It is all balancing in finding compromises :)

Attilio


-- 
Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndBRFJFZ_h_fY%2B=Wux_DfMr4V0RrqyiKPh64WmiTDm3o4g>