Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:11:05 -0800
From:      Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org>
To:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc:        Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ABIs and 5.x branch: freeze kernel module ABI at 5.0 or 5.1?
Message-ID:  <20021126151105.A40282@xorpc.icir.org>
In-Reply-To: <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM %2B0100
References:  <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org> <2079.1038351585@critter.freebsd.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:59:45PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021126174032.88614J-100000@fledge.watson.org>, Robe
> rt Watson writes:
> 
> >As such, I think a reasonable strategy would be to avoid exactly that: 
> >rather than making guarantees about the ABI for 5.0, simply assert that
> >the ABI for kernel drivers will not be frozen until 5.1, so vendors should
...
> 
> It's very simple in my mind: we only freeze ABI's on -stable branches
> (and we actually even  violated that for 4-stable I belive).
> 
> Whenever we branch a new -stable from -current, that's when we freeze
> the ABI's for that branch.

I fully agree with Poul-Henning (this does not answer to robert's
question, just moves it from 'when do we freeze the ABI' to 'when
do we branch a new -stable' but at least it is only one thing to
decide and not two).

	cheers
	luigi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021126151105.A40282>