In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dima Dorfman write
s:
>Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
>> >On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:46:18PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote:
>> >> Is there any reason not to MFC the new md(4) functionality
>> >
>> >Zero reason not to.
>>
>> Others see it differently, it would seriously break a lot of
>> people who are using -stable in embedded applications.
>>
>> If we have abandoned the "no changes to API or ABI in -stable"
>> paradigm, it would be a good idea, but it serious rains on that
>> rule...
>
>I don't think it would be much of a practical problem for anyone since
>the old behvior can be emulated with the new md pretty easily, but
>you're right that it isn't appropriate to break compatibility in
>-stable. It's probably possible to retrofit the old behavior into the
>new code, but I think that's too much evil for too little gain.
Well, I see that we just ripped out the "wd" compat bits, so I guess
we don't care about ABI/API stability that much in -stable any more...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
