On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 01:53:32 MST, Doug wrote:
> As long as you acknowledge that in this case, "You can't have it" is a > design decision, and not everyone agrees with your concept of the design. > Personally I don't care enough about it to write the patch, but that won't > stop me from registering an objection since you seem to be assuming that > silence == assent. You're right. If I make my intentions publically known and nobody objects, I assume public agreement. So I acknowledge that we're involved in design decisions here. > You need to start thinking of things in terms of the much more common > case, the casual user who will be going from say, 3.0-Release to > 3.3-Release without reading any of the documentation. You're making assumptions about what I'm trying to achieve. I'm quite sensitive to upgrade issues. > Why should this user have to either go out of his way to fix something > that wasn't broken, or find a critical service disabled when he > reboots just because no one could be bothered to make the new > interface compatible? Okay, this is what makes sense. :-) I do agree that it should be as easy as possible to upgrade from 3.2-RELEASE to 3.3-RELEASE. What you need to see is that such an upgrade _will_ involve changing some things, which is why we offer people release notes. What we're discussing (and have up until now disagreed on) is how much has to change. Since none of the people who've suggested per-case exclusion options for wrapping have come up with diffs, it's something I'll have to think about. If I can come up with something backward compatible without rupturing a testicle, I'll do so. Watch this space for details. :-) Cia, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
