From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 27 00:14:11 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 3718C16A4CE for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:14:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9501D43D2D for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:14:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5R0C1P6037178; Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:12:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 18:12:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20040626.181218.21873777.imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <3949.1088292437@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20040626231221.GA11573@dragon.nuxi.com> <3949.1088292437@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history 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: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 00:14:11 -0000 In message: <3949.1088292437@critter.freebsd.dk> "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: : In message <20040626231221.GA11573@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: : >On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:08:36PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: : >> In message <20040626100116.GK7457@wantadilla.lemis.com>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" : >> writes: : >> : >> >Has this been approved of by the core team or any other official organ : >> >of the project? : >> : >> I got a "good riddance" from re@ (scottl) : > : >That isn't sufficient. Please run thru the TRB or Core also. : >The two of you cannot unilaterally decide to axe large subsystems. : : Why do you think that a HEADSUP was sent to current@ David ? : : Presumably you belive I did that to try to sneak this decision past : your highly sentitive nose, the bulk of the committers, our most : active users, the core team, the TRB, UN peace-keeping forces, and : Lloyds Register ? Sarcasm doesn't help your case, and paints you as a 'cowboy'. : Or could it be, just by chance, that I recognized that nobody on : core (or the TRB) would have enough information to answer the very : simple question: "Is there a significant use of these bits which : we are currently unaware off ?", and therefore decided to poll a : larger audience ? Polling a larger audience is a necessary step in removing the bits. It may not be sufficient, however. One large user could veto this removal if core@ thought it important to keep that user happy, for example. : (If you answer this correctly David, you win a little yellow rubber : mat you can stomp on next time you get upset about somebody not : "following procedures") Actually, there are good reasons to follow those proceedures. You'll get a lot less flack from people when you do. : If somebody wants to pull the bits into a port and maintain it there : I have absolutely no problems with them doing that. I think this would be an excellent idea. Does anybody care enough to do this? I'd do it, but I have no way to test it, nor any luck in the past making it work. Also, if no one can be bothered to do it the first time, I doubt anyone would maintain it going forward. I will be happy to commit it for someone that does the footwork and says they will maintain it. Warner