Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:50:19 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, deischen@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h Message-ID: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20070824215515.GF16131@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708241819220.13181@sea.ntplx.net> <20070824.172212.74696955.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 24 August 2007 07:22:12 pm Warner Losh wrote: > What's the overhead of having the transition crutch around for a > while? The benefit is that people are less likely to screw up their > systems at a time when we want to encourage people to upgrade so they > can test the latest/greatest version. If it were 9 months after > RELENG_6 was branched, and a long time to a release, then I'd be much > more inclined to agree with the 'current is hard, so why spend > engineering effort on making it easy' crowd than I would now that more > of the world is watching and using it since we're in the glide path to > beta1. > > I don't see why we can't put the versioned symbols in, let everybody > upgrade and then remove the old symbols after a big enough window has > passed. It isn't like they are hurting anything by being there, is > it? Then why didn't we bump libc multiple times in a branch? It's the same exact thing except more fine-grained. If it's ok to bump symbol versions multiple times (remember, we've already done 1 bump by adding versioning and going to libc.so.7) in a branch, then it should have been ok to bump libc major numbers multiple times. I agree with Dan that we are trying to build releases, and folks running -current are expected to tolerate change during the current branch. I wouldn't expect more users until we actually do release BETA1, so I would go ahead and commit the new fts(3) soon so it is in BETA1 and the RELENG_7 branch when it is branched. > If there is some actual harm here, it hasn't been clearly articulated > and needs to be if that's the case. I'm certainly open to this > possibility. I think it will be confusing to have missing symbols just as folks would have thought it confusing to have 6.x ship with libc.so.8 if we had bumped libc multiple times. I also think that just managing the interfaces that show up in releases and -stable branches will be enough extra bookkeeping to keep track of as it is. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200708270850.20904.jhb>