Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:33:16 -0400 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su, alfred@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <1188077596.1853.55.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708251703550.19091@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708242252520.15344@sea.ntplx.net> <20070825053302.GG99474@comp.chem.msu.su> <20070825.093925.43008968.imp@bsdimp.com> <1188071752.1853.44.camel@neo.cse.buffalo.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708251703550.19091@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-a56JNptRYwiau/fyS8mC
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 17:06 -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
>=20
> >
> > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back an=
d
> > read them if you really want to... ]
> >
> > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are:
>=20
> No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed
> an -arch or -current. Approval for committing still has to go through
> re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere
> prior to being sent to re@ approval.
>=20
If that's the case then it's been my negligence and I apologize. I'll
try to be more mindful of that moving forward.
That said, I'm still confused about what aspect of this has not been
discussed. We have symbol versioning in place. Yar had a
compatibility-breaking change to make to fts(3). He followed exactly
the procedures I was led to believe are to be followed now that symbol
versioning is in place. That was why I approved it. What aspect of
that is wrong? Is it just that 7.0 isn't out the door quite yet or is
there more to it than that? I have read the thread and still can only
see arguments against it based on what I believe to be pre-symbol
versioning thinking. This is the first use of symbol versioning but to
me when Yar requested it I didn't think it needed a wider review because
I thought it followed the procedures we want to have in place from this
point forward and I didn't think going forward every time new library
symbols get phased in for particular things we'd be needing to do that
sort of large scale review.
In retrospect I think I overstepped things with the addition of the
tkill stuff and that should have gotten wider review. If I'm mistaken
about us having settled on the exact mechanics of symbol versioning then
I overstepped things again but I thought that had been settled and that
this case followed what had been settled on.
--=20
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
--=-a56JNptRYwiau/fyS8mC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBG0KAc/G14VSmup/YRAjftAKCISrFl9Z56rNzWFRP/QUh97HtLxACfXyBe
NWp9PJgfSxpMfH1kcDxnAmY=
=AQnY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-a56JNptRYwiau/fyS8mC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1188077596.1853.55.camel>