Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:10:33 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: <200702090010.l190AXss024217@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 18:01:09 -0600
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but
> this is for gif_interfaces only, right?
That's what I'd do. There's no reason to introduce support for an
instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since
gif_interfaces is the odd one out.
-- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702090010.l190AXss024217>