From owner-freebsd-arch  Tue Nov 26 15:11:10 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9CB1137B401; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 38FDA43E88; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:09 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAQNB5TO040393;
	Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org)
Received: (from rizzo@localhost)
	by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gAQNB5k2040392;
	Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from rizzo)
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>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org> <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-arch.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-arch>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-arch>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

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