Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:34:41 -0700 From: Devin Teske <dteske@FreeBSD.org> To: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> Cc: Devin Teske <dteske@FreeBSD.org>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r334939 - head/stand/lua Message-ID: <81AF4479-3B71-420F-90C7-06ED64007F52@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CACNAnaHLaMUTRcHcuj=chy5OSRa5Q-35ohJwG9g-nk5R9ryrug@mail.gmail.com> References: <201806110132.w5B1WI5d094546@repo.freebsd.org> <E6FA26B8-63CF-4927-AE20-644D985BACD8@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfrtK_Cn1N2RE=f5DS_UNLq6C493LUNwQoHvYX06noVZxg@mail.gmail.com> <344AA709-2DF7-405C-AB4D-4F0978834EA1@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfpDu4K0qdQt670px6VAsKM0a_pP4tbCtH2Vk0Ou80szzg@mail.gmail.com> <B2A41A7C-F18B-44B4-A75C-FE42E4A6D128@FreeBSD.org> <CACNAnaHLaMUTRcHcuj=chy5OSRa5Q-35ohJwG9g-nk5R9ryrug@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jun 11, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org = <mailto:dteske@freebsd.org>> wrote: >>=20 >> On Jun 11, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org> = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On Jun 10, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org> = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Author: kevans >>>>> Date: Mon Jun 11 01:32:18 2018 >>>>> New Revision: 334939 >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334939 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Log: >>>>> lualoader: Allow brand-*.lua for adding new brands >>>>>=20 >>>>> dteske@, I believe, had originally pointed out that lualoader = failed >>>>> to >>>>> allow logo-*.lua for new logos to be added. When correcting this >>>>> mistake, I >>>>> failed to do the same for brands. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> You=E2=80=99re doing an amazing job, Kyle. >>>>=20 >>>> I continually see nothing but genuine effort toward feature parity = which >>>> makes me think one day I can pass the reigns. >>>>=20 >>>> Yeah, I will always love Forth. It will always hold a special place = in my >>>> heart as that whacky language that simultaneously exudes great = power while >>>> also having the image ability to induce vomiting =F0=9F=A4=AE by = the uninitiated. >>>>=20 >>>> However, all that being said, I=E2=80=99d actually like to keep the = Ficl boot >>>> stuff as an option through to 14.0 and here is why ... >>>>=20 >>>> Last year we were looking to update from ficl3 to ficl4. That may = not >>>> sound too exciting to most folks, but most folks don=E2=80=99t know = the power that >>>> ficl4 brings =E2=80=94 like the capability to use full networking = in the loader! Can >>>> lua do that? How cool would it be to be able to communicate with = the network >>>> from the loader before the kernel is even loaded into memory? I had = a few >>>> hair-brained schemes left for Forth which might be exciting, lol >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> The current boot loader can already communicate via NFS or TFTP = today. >>> Adding http would be easy, https would be harder due to crypto being = huge >>> and space being small (though bear ssl might be small enough). >>>=20 >>> The last articulated plan in arch@ was that LUA will be default in = 12, and >>> we plan to remove FORTH in 13. Last time I said it there in = February, there >>> was only email agreeing that I could find. This matches the = in-person >>> consensus poll I took at BSDcan as well. I think it would take a = very >>> extraordinary set circumstance and severe problems with LUA to = change those >>> plans. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> At BSD Can there was the boot working group where we discussed that = an FCP >>> would be required to decide this. >>=20 >>=20 >> In the working group you weren't listening and being rather combative = and >> demanding that I do stuff, >>=20 >>=20 >> I think that's an unfair characterization of the situation, but it = doesn't >> matter -- that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> so I stopped talking. >>=20 >>=20 >> Hopefully we can _start_ talking. As the principled author of this = work, I >> want to have a say in its deprecation since I still maintain that = body of >> work. >>=20 >>=20 >> It should not be taken as a sign of my consent, but more a sign of = not >> wanting to get into a yelling match in public on a topic I thought = had been >> settled months ago. >>=20 >>=20 >> Nobody asked *me* about how I would like to see *my* work removed = from the >> tree. I think I should have a say. >>=20 >> I think I've been pretty darn helpful in the process by providing >> substantive and helpful feedback to not only Kyle but also on the = GSoC >> project etc. I've not stood in any ones way. For being so helpful, I = would >> expect a level respect in this matter. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>> I raised my desires that I would like to be able to flip a knob in = 13 and >>> reboot between Ficl and Lua, back and forth. >>>=20 >>> Give people a choice until we have done a "shake-out" through an = entire >>> major version. >>>=20 >>> An honest-to-goodness procession would be, in my mind: >>>=20 >>> 13: Has both; both are installed. End-user can boot back and forth = between >>> the two >>>=20 >>> Problems that arise in one or the other are non-critical because = there is >>> always an "out" by running the other. >>>=20 >>> 14: Has both but both are not installed. The installer media doesn't = even >>> have it. You can't install the Forth booth stuff unless you twist a = knob in >>> buildworld, optionally going down the path of generating release = media which >>> has the Forth boot stuff. >>>=20 >>> 15. It's removed from tree. You can't build Forth boot. Lua only. No >>> looking back, no way to build it with Forth, to get Ficl you need to = go to >>> ports. A Ficl with FreeBSD boot words no longer exists and is no = longer >>> maintained. All of bhyve userboot also therefore uses Lua. >>=20 >>=20 >> That's way too long. 12 will have Lua by default, but you can build = FORTH if >> you want has been the plan since February when I socialized this on = arch@. I >> originally pitched coexistence, but there was little appetite for = that. >>=20 >> So I think a FCP discussed in arch@ is the right path forward. >>=20 >>=20 >> We sat on the GSoC for years. Why all of a sudden do we need to ship = this in >> less than 6 months? >>=20 >> There are new features in Forth for 12 and they work and Lua has not = caught >> up to them (e.g., Boot Environments in the loader menu) and you want = to make >> Lua the default in 12? This doesn't make sense. >=20 > I have no comments on the rest- this discussion should mostly occur on > the FCP that will be drafted shortly. We added Boot Environment > support months ago at this point, and also added some other cool > feature like auto-detecting kernels in /boot/* to be presented in the > kernel selector. >=20 Would you be willing to update here for the benefit of those in this = thread... Are you at feature parity yet? --=20 Devin=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81AF4479-3B71-420F-90C7-06ED64007F52>