From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 29 16:11:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DD816A4CE; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ADF743D1F; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from zahpod.softweyr.com (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 575CD1880C1A; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:45 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr To: Steve Kargl Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:11:45 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <200402260234.i1Q2YDx1014240@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040226061846.GB15864@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20040227182325.GA81744@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20040227182325.GA81744@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200402291611.45616.wes@softweyr.com> cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: Max Laier cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/contrib/pf/net if_pflog.c if_pflog.h if_pfsync.c if_pfsync.h pf.c pf_ioctl.c pf_norm.c pf_osfp.c pf_table.c pfvar.h src/sys/contrib/pf/netinet in4_cksum.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 00:11:46 -0000 On Friday 27 February 2004 10:23 am, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:18:46AM +0000, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > > > We do not plan to remove ipfw or ipfilter at this time nor do we have > > plans to remove them, until pf receives further evaluation by the > > user base, there would be no mandate or grounding for such a > > decision. > > If any of ipfw, ipfilter, or ip6fw are candidates for removal, then > it needs to be done before 5-STABLE is branched. Otherwise, we need > to find individuals to actively maintain each of these throughout the > lifetime of 5.X (a 3 to 5 year time span). ipfw2 is being actively maintained and developed. ipfilter I'm not so sure about, Darren doesn't seem to have been all that active lately. I suspect the locking changes have given him reason to hide, he usually prefers to wait until such states of flux have settled out before he tries to repair what he sees as damage to ipfilter. ;^) Your point about maintenance is well taken. No action of that magnitued would be undertaken without a thorough bikeshed^Wdiscussion on -arch. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com