Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 13:42:20 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs Message-ID: <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw>