> On Jun 11, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Devin Teske <dte...@freebsd.org > <mailto:dte...@freebsd.org>> wrote: > >> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com >> <mailto:i...@bsdimp.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Devin Teske <dte...@freebsd.org >> <mailto:dte...@freebsd.org>> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 10, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Evans <kev...@freebsd.org >> > <mailto:kev...@freebsd.org>> wrote: >> > >> > Author: kevans >> > Date: Mon Jun 11 01:32:18 2018 >> > New Revision: 334939 >> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334939 >> > <https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334939> >> > >> > Log: >> > lualoader: Allow brand-*.lua for adding new brands >> > >> > dteske@, I believe, had originally pointed out that lualoader failed to >> > allow logo-*.lua for new logos to be added. When correcting this mistake, >> > I >> > failed to do the same for brands. >> > >> >> You’re doing an amazing job, Kyle. >> >> I continually see nothing but genuine effort toward feature parity which >> makes me think one day I can pass the reigns. >> >> Yeah, I will always love Forth. It will always hold a special place in my >> heart as that whacky language that simultaneously exudes great power while >> also having the image ability to induce vomiting 🤮 by the uninitiated. >> >> However, all that being said, I’d actually like to keep the Ficl boot stuff >> as an option through to 14.0 and here is why ... >> >> Last year we were looking to update from ficl3 to ficl4. That may not sound >> too exciting to most folks, but most folks don’t know the power that ficl4 >> brings — like the capability to use full networking in the loader! Can lua >> do that? How cool would it be to be able to communicate with the network >> from the loader before the kernel is even loaded into memory? I had a few >> hair-brained schemes left for Forth which might be exciting, lol >> >> The current boot loader can already communicate via NFS or TFTP today. >> Adding http would be easy, https would be harder due to crypto being huge >> and space being small (though bear ssl might be small enough). >> >> The last articulated plan in arch@ was that LUA will be default in 12, and >> we plan to remove FORTH in 13. Last time I said it there in February, there >> was only email agreeing that I could find. This matches the in-person >> consensus poll I took at BSDcan as well. I think it would take a very >> extraordinary set circumstance and severe problems with LUA to change those >> plans. >> > > At BSD Can there was the boot working group where we discussed that an FCP > would be required to decide this. > > In the working group you weren't listening and being rather combative and > demanding that I do stuff,
I think that's an unfair characterization of the situation, but it doesn't matter -- that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. > so I stopped talking. Hopefully we can _start_ talking. As the principled author of this work, I want to have a say in its deprecation since I still maintain that body of work. > It should not be taken as a sign of my consent, but more a sign of not > wanting to get into a yelling match in public on a topic I thought had been > settled months ago. > Nobody asked *me* about how I would like to see *my* work removed from the tree. I think I should have a say. I think I've been pretty darn helpful in the process by providing substantive and helpful feedback to not only Kyle but also on the GSoC project etc. I've not stood in any ones way. For being so helpful, I would expect a level respect in this matter. > I raised my desires that I would like to be able to flip a knob in 13 and > reboot between Ficl and Lua, back and forth. > > Give people a choice until we have done a "shake-out" through an entire major > version. > > An honest-to-goodness procession would be, in my mind: > > 13: Has both; both are installed. End-user can boot back and forth between > the two > > Problems that arise in one or the other are non-critical because there is > always an "out" by running the other. > > 14: Has both but both are not installed. The installer media doesn't even > have it. You can't install the Forth booth stuff unless you twist a knob in > buildworld, optionally going down the path of generating release media which > has the Forth boot stuff. > > 15. It's removed from tree. You can't build Forth boot. Lua only. No looking > back, no way to build it with Forth, to get Ficl you need to go to ports. A > Ficl with FreeBSD boot words no longer exists and is no longer maintained. > All of bhyve userboot also therefore uses Lua. > > That's way too long. 12 will have Lua by default, but you can build FORTH if > you want has been the plan since February when I socialized this on arch@. I > originally pitched coexistence, but there was little appetite for that. > > So I think a FCP discussed in arch@ is the right path forward. > We sat on the GSoC for years. Why all of a sudden do we need to ship this in less than 6 months? There are new features in Forth for 12 and they work and Lua has not caught up to them (e.g., Boot Environments in the loader menu) and you want to make Lua the default in 12? This doesn't make sense. The timeline I suggested is more amenable to actually crossing the finish line with a fully-functional drop-in replacement. -- Devin _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
