Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:50:23 GMT From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <200702082350.l18NoNi7023084@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>
To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>,
Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org,
FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 17:47:37 -0600
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>
> >>> The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening.
> >>> I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces
> >>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in
> >>> CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable.
> >> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree
> >> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and
> >> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry
> >> over usability.
> >
> > That would be fine. I don't really care as long as it's deprecated.
> >
> > FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually
> > set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of
> > effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen
> > is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should
> > be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it.
>
> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an
> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was
> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message
> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in
> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but
> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7
> is branched.
I'd say a warning in both.
-- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702082350.l18NoNi7023084>