Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 20:48:29 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> 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: <20141024174829.GC1877@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com> References: <691948956.6194558.1414090646089.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1410241641370.72164@fledge.watson.org> <20141024161735.GB1877@kib.kiev.ua> <CAPyFy2CeDxHzKH_1AKg50K3REdGt5=Y90dDs2au4gE5EUnRedw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:42:20PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > 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. We do build both (old) nfsclient and nfsserver, at least as modules.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141024174829.GC1877>