Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:12:44 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: time_t on sparc64 Message-ID: <p06002006bbb358ebfea2@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20031015190951.GA638@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <20031013153219.H45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031014103446.U45269@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015045429.Q41837@gamplex.bde.org> <20031014225053.GA59096@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015090422.M57857@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20031015074437.GA60338@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20031015075111.GA52914@rot13.obsecurity.org> <p06002002bbb33b2002dd@[128.113.24.47]> <20031015190951.GA638@ns1.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:09 PM -0700 10/15/03, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >On Wed, Oct 15, 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > >> I agree it would be better if we had 64-bit time_t's for >> 5.x-STABLE. I would really really like to see that. However, >> we are hoping to make 5.x turn into 5.x-stable with a release >> of 5.2 in December. > >In fact, 5-stable happens no sooner than 5.3 in Feb 2004. Make >the switch before 5.2 and you have enough time to deal with >ports that suddenly start to break. Oh. I thought it was going to be 5.2. Well, I'm still uneasy about making the change, but I don't object quite as much if we aren't shooting for -stable in 5.2. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002006bbb358ebfea2>