From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 27 22:01:34 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D04016A417; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:01:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8D113C4D3; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:01:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id l7RM1MMX028305; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:01:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:01:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <200708271757.01674.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <200708270850.20904.jhb@freebsd.org> <200708271715.21462.jhb@freebsd.org> <200708271757.01674.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" , yar@comp.chem.msu.su Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:01:34 -0000 On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote: >>>> it is today. >>> >>> So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD? >> >> No, I don't see how you get that from what I said... > > You originally objected to having fts compat symbols as 1.0 and wanted the new > fts to be 1.0. Now you are saying that the new fts can be 1.1 and the old > ones (only used in old current) can remain 1.0. > > That is, now you are saying to do what Yar originally wanted to do before you > objected. No, I still think they should be 1.0 or wait till after the release. I just made some assumption for the sake of giving an example. -- DE