On Monday 27 August 2007 05:38:08 pm Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Monday 27 August 2007 04:55:31 pm Daniel Eischen wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >>> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> : And yes, I do think it's ok for -current to have rougher edges. After > > all, we > >>> : aren't really trying to get people running -current on production > > systems. > >>> > >>> I think it is OK for -current to have rougher edges. I don't think it > >>> is OK to require -current to have rougher edges. > >> > >> I think we can agree on that! I also think there is some confusion > >> over whether adding ABI changes to an existing symbol version would > >> force us to rebuild ports. It doesn't. Once symbol versioning is > >> released in 7.0, we can create a new version (FBSD_1.1, or add to > >> the existing FBSD_1.1 depending on how the FTS stuff goes) and add > >> all the (non-overlapping) ABI changes we want to it _without_ having > >> to rebuild ports. This is a tremendous advantage over -current as > >> it is today. > > > > So you want to just bump the version everytime a change happens in HEAD? > > No, I don't see how you get that from what I said...
You originally objected to having fts compat symbols as 1.0 and wanted the new fts to be 1.0. Now you are saying that the new fts can be 1.1 and the old ones (only used in old current) can remain 1.0. That is, now you are saying to do what Yar originally wanted to do before you objected. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
