Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 10:14:10 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: net@freebsd.org Cc: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com Subject: Re: m->m_pkthdr.header Message-ID: <200206081714.g58HEAM04093@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020608130907.A92176@unixdaemons.com> References: <200206071955.g57JtrJ65814@arch20m.dellroad.org> <200206081616.g58GG6v03893@vashon.polstra.com> <20020608130907.A92176@unixdaemons.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20020608130907.A92176@unixdaemons.com>, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> wrote: > > While I agree that -STABLE is a more sensitive fish (which is partly > why I really don't enjoy dealing with it -- this argument always comes > up), I think that these types of changes absolutely need to go into > -CURRENT. We shouldn't have to worry about "breaking binary > compatibility" in our development releases. I can almost guarantee > that a lot of stuff isn't going to work without a rebuild when people > decide to go from 4.x to 5.0 anyway. Placing dummy-fillers is just > annoying. OK, I can live with that for -current. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200206081714.g58HEAM04093>