Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:32:07 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64-bit time_t on sparc64, epilogue(?) Message-ID: <200311152232.07935.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <p06002013bbdb7ea2e91d@[128.113.24.47]> References: <p06002011bbdb6f7e5cc8@[128.113.24.47]> <3FB5C942.1010907@freebsd.org> <p06002013bbdb7ea2e91d@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 14 November 2003 11:12 pm, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 11:35 PM -0700 11/14/03, Scott Long wrote:
> >Switching to 64-bit time_t this late in the 5.2 cycle will
> >likely cause more excitement than we can handle. ...
> >...Why don't we put this on the TODO list for 5.3, and
> >plan to do it in early January, assuming that Jake and
> >Thomas are ok with it.
>
> Personally I am inclined to think that we have to stop
> making ABI/API changes to 5.x or we will never ever get
> to "5.x-stable". It would be nice if 5.2 were the last
> set of API/ABI changes, so that people who install it can
> at least have a painless upgrade to 5.3-release (which
> will hopefully be 5.x-stable).
Refraining from changing the ABI is one of the many thing that "STABLE"
means in FreeBSD. We agreed quite some time ago there is too much to do
to get everything in by 5.2 and pushed back the -STABLE timeline to 5.3.
So you've been given a reprieve. And just think of all that testing time
you'll have over the holidays to make sure it's really really right. ;^)
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200311152232.07935.wes>