Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:18:18 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, Maxime Henrion <mux@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, obrien@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf DEFAULTS GENERIC Message-ID: <436554BA.5030806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <43655427.9060804@FreeBSD.org> References: <200510271734.j9RHYZAk015054@repoman.freebsd.org> <20051030062148.GA76667@dragon.NUXI.org> <4364D017.1050605@samsco.org> <20051030231108.GQ1327@elvis.mu.org> <43655427.9060804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote:
> Maxime Henrion wrote:
>
>
>>While I'm all for making FreeBSD less prone to errors like the one
>>discussed here, I feel that having: a DEFAULTS file, a good comment
>>explaining what purpose it serves in it, an explicit include DEFAULTS in
>>GENERIC and a big scary comment next to it inclde explaining why one
>>should not remove it ought to be sufficient.
>
>
> I think you're right, at around the 6.2-RELEASE mark or so. I think that our
> developers tend to dramatically overestimate
s/over/under/. This post used to be longer, but I condensed out the bit that
would have allowed that sentence to make sense. :)
> the amount of stuff that the
> average user needs to keep track of, especially when we're talking one or
> two major revision bumps.
>
> Doug
>
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?436554BA.5030806>