On 02/28/15 13:28, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:23:10 PM Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:25:59PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
A> [snip]
A>
A> I think Mike's approach is good - it makes it easy to MFC to 10.2
A> since there's extended lifecycle stuff to do there - and then we can
A> plan out how do the "betterer" fix after it's landed and churned
A> things.
... and we will be ought to support the "betterer" fix along with
the "not so betterer" for a very long time.
The rock on which we split in this argument is that some developers
write their code for stable/x and then forward-port it to head,
focused on quality of result for stable/x; while other developers
do the opposite: write code to head, then consider or not consider
merging it stable/x.
No, this is not quite true. Some folks have to write drivers on HEAD but also
support running those drivers on older branches. The MFC's get harder when
you have very different APIs on the different branches. It's already harder
to test stat changes now since it requires completely different patches for
<= 10 (the only thing people are supposed to use in production) vs head due to
if_getcounter() and friends. Also, since 11 won't be out until 2016, that is
far, far too long to wait for more media types. The stuff we need to support
is already shipping in products today. We can't not support these in 10 (and
possibly 9).
Any news on this issue? Is anyone working on a solution for -head ?
--HPS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
