On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Ben Kaduk <minimar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not wish to belabor the point; we all have better things to do > with our time. Hopefully this is my last message on the topic. > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Attilio Rao <atti...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> The point is that KPI/KBI of -CURRENT can change as long as >> __FreeBSD_version is bumped (and if you really want to know my >> opinion, I already see this as a forceful thing because it would not >> be necessary in my mind, but I second the will of the majority of >> developers). So, if the KPI/KBI changes all the thirdy part code, >> ports and everything else must adapt. > > Yes, everything must adapt to changes in -current. I am arguing that, > if it is easy to do so, we should make the user experience for > *ordinary users* running -current as nice as possible. If we do not > have ordinary users running current, then our code does not get > real-world testing until RC builds, or even the .0 release. I think > it is well-accepted that we want to have the code in -current get > real-world testing; making the user experience nicer helps this to > happen. To me, it seems that the user experience is nicer if the KPI > change is delayed from the KBI change. We have mechanisms in place > that can enforce __FreeBSD_Version of kernel modules must match the > version of the running kernel, so I do not see how this procedure > would lead to silent binary incompatibility.
The courtesy you are mentioning here is the __FreeBSD_Version. Having stricter rule would just meaning doing under-performing and unclean job. > >> MPSAFE flag is not any longer supported and code needs to be ported >> appropriately to -CURRENT interface. > > That is the present state of affairs, yes. I am asking only, "think > of the users; can we make things easier for them?". > Maybe not in this case, but as something to keep in mind for the future. I can understand your concern, but people using -CURRENT must be well aware of the fact that this is a development branch and they cannot expect too many safety belt mechanisms to be in place. I think that the current model (break KBI/KPI at will, give ports/thirdy part a way to recognize it via __FreeBSD_Version and move on) is optimal because it doesn't limit the developer neither leaves the user completely without a landmark on how to fix the problem. It is all balancing in finding compromises :) Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
