let me play devil's advocate here: On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:41 PM Matthew Ahrens <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...] > > I think the term "portable" is more specific than "compat[ible]", so "-o > features=portable" is probably a better name. Thanks to whoever suggested > that at the meeting Tuesday. > > I think that the definition of "-o features=portable" needs to change over > time, as features become more widely available. Do you have thoughts on > how specifically we should do that? > this reminds me a bit of C's "int", and all the issues we have with various sizes of "int". If I were to chose, I'd prefer something akin to C(++) standards options for C compilers, like c99, which are fixed in time and scope (or so one would hope) - eg "-o features=openzfs-portable-2018" or sth along those lines (someone will surely think of a better label ;-)). regards Michael -- Michael Schuster http://recursiveramblings.wordpress.com/ recursion, n: see 'recursion' ------------------------------------------ openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/T562a2f6ecf883736-M21946a0633732a57e8466f2d Delivery options: https://openzfs.topicbox.com/groups/developer/subscription
