Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1? Message-ID: <20021126151105.A40282@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM %2B0100 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org> <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robe > rt Watson writes: > > >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: > >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that > >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should ... > > It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches > (and we actually even violated that for 4-stable I belive). > > Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze > the ABI's for that branch. I fully agree with Poul-Henning (this does not answer to robert's question, just moves it from 'when do we freeze the ABI' to 'when do we branch a new -stable' but at least it is only one thing to decide and not two). cheers luigi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021126151105.A40282>