On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Devin Teske <dte...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > 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> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Warner Losh <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Devin Teske <dte...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> > On Jun 10, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Evans <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 >>> > >>> > 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"
