From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 6 23:20:35 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D28A2D75; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:20:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A725E8FC12; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:20:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id b5so1083722lbd.13 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:20:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=63t3aHAiJhP6WyufSFWyYtWfozfQG08PG4TFbDpYf4c=; b=iF2y4V1SxIM85o+fXe9N1KhMPHUz5szQOlCwEeG4x6b64ag1oRC7K2DxF6H3rOb3bP +6SlPPzhk3cUUqVT2is1yLRzVaqonS9UpuLYVBFv5lx2oXBaI0LjEDBsTsx0oME6j8Nj rh0GRtzhNWI7WBTU0o0OlupA4nBqjKoD7sUa4Ur1htZlyCwbAJffPheFSeogFgEsP5Eg h4duoV/lSJcsS+L2tX7s6gj+DMYwpNTw1giYVryL1Ykk+bJpL0LcjR1hfPVRPxFa8l7U sfELQ6d9RWqMAutta6eh6SUofwVgEYKorHcgALb5ZtnGJfU2xS3FYKIWoxqVm0WGtO09 3MhQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.28.98 with SMTP id a2mr1142342lbh.110.1352244033124; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:20:33 -0800 (PST) Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.30.37 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:20:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201210221750.q9MHot26061585@svn.freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:20:33 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3ToqKg28ESJtnhM1vks475t4Dh8 Message-ID: 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... From: Attilio Rao To: Ben Kaduk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: attilio@FreeBSD.org List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:20:36 -0000 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Ben Kaduk 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 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