From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 7 18:29:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C33B16A4CE for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:29:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BED43D5F for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:29:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i082RgUd014929; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:27:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i082RgbH014926; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:27:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 21:27:42 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Ryan Sommers In-Reply-To: <1073527914.650.41.camel@localhost> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Release criteria for libkse -> libpthread switch? X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:29:19 -0000 On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ryan Sommers wrote: > On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 19:39, Robert Watson wrote: > > My leaning is we should throw the switch to libkse sooner rather than > > later to improve exposure, even though it's not quite feature complete. > > It was basically an accident of timing and intent that we didn't get to > > the rename before 5.2. For one thing, it will get applications to start > > linking against libpthread sooner. However, if we're going to throw the > > switch, it would be good to know the features aren't far behind :-). > > My only concern with this is that it might cause some sort of delay in > getting to 5-STABLE. I think, as I'm sure most would agree, that > achieving a 5-STABLE is the next major milestone for the project. One > that, from the lists, some think is somewhat overdue. On the other hand, M:N threading is one of the big "5-STABLE" features, so if we continue to consider it one of those features, moving to it as the default is a better thing to do sooner than later. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research