Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 22:11:10 +0900 From: Kazutaka YOKOTA <yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> To: sos@freebsd.dk Cc: tg@ihf.rwth-aachen.de (Thomas Gellekum), cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 cons.c cons.h src/sys/i386/isa vesa.c src/sys/i386/include console.h src/sys/alpha/al Message-ID: <199906231311.WAA05127@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:56:50 %2B0200." <199906231156.NAA62202@freebsd.dk> References: <199906231156.NAA62202@freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> > Log: >> > The second phase of syscons reorganization. >> >> Do you plan to merge these changes into RELENG_3 at some point in the >> not too distant future? > >Erhm, I'd say no, there is too much difference between -stable and -current >here, besides -stable gets bugfixes, not new funtionality/design by definition JFYI. Difference between -CURRENT and -STABLE is not the issue here. Necessary amount of effort to back-port these update to -STABLE is negligible. The most significant difference between -CURRENT and -STABLE is new-bus stuff. But, it won't affect these drivers much. In fact, I prepared much of this update before new-bus got into -CURRENT when -CURRENT and -STABLE were still very similar. Anyway, if we strictly stick to the principle that -STABLE only gets fixes and no enhancement, this update won't be merged to -STABLE. But, we find it fixes some problems in -STABLE (I don't know if there is any, though), we might contemplate MFC. Kazu 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?199906231311.WAA05127>