From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 9 00:07:52 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF9E16A40B for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:07:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A5C1B13C4BB for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:07:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 26586 invoked by uid 399); 9 Feb 2007 00:07:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.4?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 9 Feb 2007 00:07:50 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <45CBBB4E.1030007@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:07:42 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0b2 (Windows/20070116) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brooks Davis References: <20070205163646.GB48768@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45C75E1F.2070709@FreeBSD.org> <45C77AFD.1050801@FreeBSD.org> <45C77B9B.20403@FreeBSD.org> <20070205190220.GA51379@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CB9C44.8010207@FreeBSD.org> <20070208224659.GA96852@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CBB2A1.706@FreeBSD.org> <20070208234737.GA98583@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CBB6B4.7050407@FreeBSD.org> <20070209000109.GA98754@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20070209000109.GA98754@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura , Florent Thoumie Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 00:07:52 -0000 Brooks Davis wrote: > 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. Yes. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection