From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 24 02:22:42 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99539217; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:22:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432038FC0A; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ta14so6297252obb.5 for ; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:22:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Hzqtmq9/srdHK86u4AX8LDsjbrZ/4KYvwBuC7ySo924=; b=v59z+ME/KbqymMNzP2mh95W6kVyrB2xJhVamJmIJNbCbpA7yRlDev5tdDL8QUUxlLe aAnFH7dz1heVfdOS1WoWosVRwCz2EqhFtRzXzETMmlGgSebtpN6F2+E7k/0xdBxKRhAx 8wGtMej+cz6N3UF3VpcvUXOTEH6oUX1gAxIH0OQatl05sSsEhYW1PWJrx92joKoizGCp nuk4ZRzT4QT1YqjnrBWQQlceA7W3iQDJS2uGJxGDq8adKQV5b0Ehk+8AzdS3jWwYV1fG QKMPapKClRFZjpllM6dBW5/Owo3MkSoIi2kHVhqrG+kzWDL+K7yBE1/JyW8DiUyasXmT FQjw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.172.164 with SMTP id bd4mr4877830oec.51.1356315761514; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:22:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.143.33 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:22:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20121222164602.GB32022@sandvine.com> <1Tmb5f-000Jy5-CT@internal.tormail.org> <50D684D7.8050906@mu.org> Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:22:41 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add WITH_DEBUG_FILES knob to enable separate debug files From: Garrett Cooper To: Eitan Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ed Maste X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:22:42 -0000 On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 23 December 2012 16:47, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> I would probably setup things in such a way that the old default >> is kept though because I'm sure that there's someone out there that's >> using it (even it it's not *the best* default per how we prefix things >> in ports). > > If the old defaults aren't the best defaults - I'd change them. If > someone depends on the old defaults they should be explicitly set. > POLA should not impede progress. Good point. Should this be documented in UPDATING? Thanks, -Garrett