> David Holland <dholland-t...@netbsd.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 10:28:57PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > > I consider lfs second-class citizen at this time and if forward > > > compat if broken for the lfs module on the branch it's probably not > > > a big deal). > > > > I don't consider that acceptable... > > > > I am in agreement with Manuel. Without going into argument on BSD LFS > design issues, current code is way too far from being anywhere stable > and reliable. It should not block any progress in other subsystems.
irregardless of what LFS is or isn't, breaking it on the branch is not acceptable. you might not use it or trust it, but there are people who do -- the people who maintain it -- and the same argument applies equally to their work as to any other work. this is for a change that i'm not even convinced is a good thing, let alone deserves to invade changing the buffer cache so close to a release. more generally on this issue: i don't think it matters if netbsd-6 and -current end up having non-trivially different implementations of this code. what matters most is that we (a) release netbsd-6 soon and (b) keep it stable. if non-trivial changes are necessary for ffsv2 extattr support to be part of netbsd-6 then i think that those changes have missed the boat. if those changes can be kept localised, but not entirely clean, then netbsd-6 can still have the feature without the potential for disrupting the release. .mrg.
