From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 13 22:46:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987F616A4CE for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:46:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE22643D49 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:46:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6DMkGqL027753; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:46:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Jon Disnard From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:40:26 CDT." <40F464DA.4030501@linuxpowered.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:46:16 +0200 Message-ID: <27752.1089758776@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk cc: Barney Wolff cc: Drew Broadley cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSUP and 5.2.1 RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:46:28 -0000 In message <40F464DA.4030501@linuxpowered.com>, Jon Disnard writes: >>The correct solution is the add whatever it takes to make the world >>target fail if it is unsafe. >> >So possibly a system to parse UPDATING, or whatever, for ABI changes and >then halting the installworld stages of the world target? Well, maybe we need a different criteria for bumping __FreeBSD_version or maybe we need a parallel ABI version number, but parsing UPDATING would be a hack. >That seems good and bad, because sometimes people checkin without any >documentation, and this idea would absolutely require anything with a >potential to cause hazard to be documented with (or before) the >associated checkin. Are all the commiters diligent enough to do that? Is >there some other way we can have this idea of a "smart make world" that >acknowledges the case of lazy documentation? I think that if we make it a rule that __FreeBSD_version be bumped if make world without a kernel update would be unsafe would be followed. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.