Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:01:09 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <20070209000109.GA98754@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <45CBB6B4.7050407@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070205163646.GB48768@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45C75E1F.2070709@FreeBSD.org> <45C77AFD.1050801@FreeBSD.org> <45C77B9B.20403@FreeBSD.org> <20070205190220.GA51379@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CB9C44.8010207@FreeBSD.org> <20070208224659.GA96852@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CBB2A1.706@FreeBSD.org> <20070208234737.GA98583@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45CBB6B4.7050407@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > >>>> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. > >>>>> I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces > >>>>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in > >>>>> CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. > >>>> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree > >>>> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and > >>>> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry > >>>> over usability. > >>> That would be fine. I don't really care as long as it's deprecated. > >>> > >>> FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually > >>> set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of > >>> effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen > >>> is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should > >>> be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it. > >> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an > >> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was > >> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message > >> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in > >> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but > >> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7 > >> is branched. > > > > I'd say a warning in both. > > Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but > this is for gif_interfaces only, right? That's what I'd do. There's no reason to introduce support for an instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since gif_interfaces is the odd one out. -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070209000109.GA98754>