On Wed, May 28, 2008, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2008, David Schultz wrote: > > >On Wed, May 28, 2008, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >>No, all new symbols in 8-current go into FBSD_1.1, not 1.2. The > >>only time we go to 1.2 is when 8.x branches to 9.0. If for some > >>reason memrchr() were to change its ABI, then we would go to 1.1.1 > >>in -current for the ABI change and any subsequent new symbols, and > >>the MFC to 7.x would also be 1.1.1. > >> > >>It is ok for a FBSD_1.1 in -current to be a superset of FBSD_1.1 > >>in a previous branch. In fact you can't prevent them from being > >>different unless you mandate that all new symbols get MFC'd to > >>their respective namespaces in previous branches. > > > >Perhaps I misinterpreted what you said about this last year, but I > >thought you said you didn't want symbols added to existing > >namespaces in -STABLE. In 7.X, why would it be okay to add new > >symbols to FBSD_1.1 between releases but not to FBSD_1.0? > > I think you're just off by a version. -stable didn't have > FBSD_1.1, so we just _did_ add memrchr() to a _new_ namespace > in -stable.
Yes, yes, that's fine, that's what I said. But you also said it's fine to add things to FBSD_1.1 in 7.X, which I think is different from what you told me last year... In practice, this means that if a binary uses FBSD_1.0 and FBSD_1.1 symbols, the only thing you can say with confidence is that it will run in 8.0-RELEASE. That's fine with me; I'd just like to make sure I understand what you do and don't intend to guarantee. _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
