Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:20:04 -0800 From: Alex Zepeda <jazepeda@pacbell.net> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Message-ID: <20010212162004.A9106@zippy.mybox.zip> In-Reply-To: <200102122220.f1CMKUm01666@mass.dis.org>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800 References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010212170101.11435B-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200102122220.f1CMKUm01666@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new > structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE > structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release cycle? Seems to me that a new major number is far cleaner than a gross hack. - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010212162004.A9106>