Gary E. Miller via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > Hal Murray via devel <devel@ntpsec.org> wrote: > > I think you should revert the long double change and wait until > > post-release to clean up that area - not just the precision part but > > the whole clock adjusting area. > > Oh, please, no. It is stable, except for the NetBSD 6 thing. It fixed > a bunch of issues and starting over could take weeks. > > Consensus seems to be to go for timespec(64) direcctly after 1.0.
I concur. According to our analysis, long double is not better than double
in the way I mistakenly believed, but it's no worse either. The change was not
toxic, merely ineffective.
Reverting it would be exacly the kind of poke-the-possible-hornet's-nest
change that we should be avoiding.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
