From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 24 17:42:41 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8D5BBCB;
 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:42:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2A0A403;
 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:42:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id l13so864089iga.2
 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
 :subject:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=WJE8MrD6TuKxZLERGm8LmOp9UYr88sT+H7DjyH3PetA=;
 b=atCXs5Un6Svg5KKmfn7FnZ059NnSp431B6KJFVFsnKc+18Dxn3VUefJo4Z4rDoO6BC
 /AU/1XLfehZgcTnpbtoSmX0eAsGBxGE/G8w52Eif1PiuzxNY+XZwfX038KKwLTWdkgRt
 YhHgQH9a5zH2+aKL+kx6tzabAmAWqWbxnHEq+gdB1DrIwGKmhYmFA9fKZDxlpAYloVUY
 TyhCcwpGOFsohVCSREJTbZWzhiZMViW0ctIpeZVWoqXxxqFljh9TXDVpgFzRXm6xsuDb
 XDaBf/+4Jt9xwKBJwXf8feselL4ALXIQk8kLLz/XkJnbc2yVh08KTBOLL0KrTzOjSN7M
 a4Cg==
X-Received: by 10.42.187.72 with SMTP id cv8mr4869643icb.22.1414172560946;
 Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: carpeddiem@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.29.132 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141024161735.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua>
References: <691948956.6194558.1414090646089.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
 <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410241641370.72164@fledge.watson.org>
 <20141024161735.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua>
From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:42:20 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6hL06XykV-sr_0_mp9_U5KLwLpI
Message-ID: <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs
To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>,
 freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:42:42 -0000

On 24 October 2014 12:17, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client,
> around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which
> still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8.  If this reason is still valid, oldnfs
> have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for
> developers.
>
> I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches.
> Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around.

I only see real value in that if we're actually building and testing
it on HEAD on a regular basis though. If we don't build it by default
on HEAD and don't generally test it there, I think we're actually
worse off to commit changes to HEAD first and then MFC.