On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
Hi,
2) I am (was) still running C4B on amd64 on RELENG_8 with a privately
hacked together capi call log, which is a hack without me even
thinking about capi (specs) when doing it, but was doing the job
for me for 7 and 8. Getting the last C4B
Hi Doug Barton!
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:27:02 -0700; Doug Barton wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
You either not understanding that this situation is about entire project (not
ISDN, but policy)
I think at this point that you've made your concerns clear. What you
don't
Hi Andriy Gapon!
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:09:54 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
You either not understanding that this situation is about entire project (not
ISDN, but policy) or assert that users just running FreeBSD should not care
about the way
Hi jhell!
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:51:06 -0400; jhell wrote about 'Re: Policy for removing
working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)':
The situation was: an announcement was made that in X months, all network
drivers need to be made to run Giant-free so that FreeBSD
Hi Julian H. Stacey!
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 11:20:10 +0200; Julian H. Stacey wrote about 'Re: Policy
for removing working code':
If someone is following a RELENG_X (a.k.a -STABLE) or a RELENG_X_Y (a
errata fix branch), then they should be reading the stable@ list.
True for RELENG_X
Hi jhell!
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:26:04 -0400; jhell wrote about 'Re: Policy for removing
working code':
Just send these notices to -announce. The removal of stuff like this
doesn't happen often, and as long as we're careful with the frequency
and content of the messages I can't imagine
on 17/09/2010 12:14 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
You either not understanding that this situation is about entire project (not
ISDN, but policy) or assert that users just running FreeBSD should not care
about the way things happen, which is wrong. And thus your stop provoking
sounds
On 9/17/2010 2:14 AM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
You either not understanding that this situation is about entire project (not
ISDN, but policy)
I think at this point that you've made your concerns clear. What you
don't seem to be understanding is:
1) The policy is, and always has been, those
per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
[...]
Beyond that, I suspect
that dropping an HBA or three would have been far less burdensome
on users of the hardware in question than dropping ISDN is on its
users. One can always replace a no-longer-supported HBA with a
supported one, or (worst case)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/2010 14:24, Doug Barton wrote:
On 9/10/2010 2:20 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
One option could be a new list
Just send these notices to -announce. The removal of stuff like this
doesn't happen often, and as long as we're careful with the
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Hi Scot Hetzel!
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:18:52 -0500; Scot Hetzel wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to
be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list.
That may depend on how
On 9/10/2010 2:20 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
One option could be a new list
Just send these notices to -announce. The removal of stuff like this
doesn't happen often, and as long as we're careful with the frequency
and content of the messages I can't imagine people would complain too much.
John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to
be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list.
That may depend on how often something substantial is removed :)
I do think stable@ is a good place to e-mail ...
Good, perhaps even
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:22:22AM -0700, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to
be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list.
That may depend on how often something substantial is removed
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 3:22 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to
be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list.
That may depend on how often something substantial is removed :)
I do
on 09/09/2010 11:22 per...@pluto.rain.com said the following:
Good, perhaps even necessary, but is it sufficient? Those
following a -STABLE branch are expected to read stable@, but
what about those who are following a security branch?
People, who care, are expected to read current@ and
Hi Andriy Gapon!
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:13:29 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
network stack, it is deeper. It is the policy or may be style of thought,
discourse. Something like:
progress dictates we need fix/maintainership to feature X
we have
Hi John Baldwin!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 10:21:47 -0400; John Baldwin wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
No, that would require maintaining two network stacks, not just one. The
shims to allow unlocked code to run were not trivial. The choices were
this:
1) Moving forward
Hi Scot Hetzel!
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 04:18:52 -0500; Scot Hetzel wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
We can't e-mail announce@ every time something is going to
be removed. That would be way too much spam for that list.
That may depend on how often something substantial
Hi Andriy Gapon!
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:57 +0300; Andriy Gapon wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code':
Good, perhaps even necessary, but is it sufficient? Those
following a -STABLE branch are expected to read stable@, but
what about those who are following a security branch
on 09/09/2010 17:07 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
Because this thread is not about this feature but about policy which will
slowly bring FreeBSD project to troubles if nothing will be changed.
Your opinion is noted.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
On 09/08/2010 06:44, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Hi Mark Linimon!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For a practical reasons, it works but slow
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:33:57 +0300
From: Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua
Sender: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org
on 09/09/2010 11:22 per...@pluto.rain.com said the following:
Good, perhaps even necessary, but is it sufficient? Those
following a -STABLE branch are expected to read
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Hey,
I think I should try to summarize parts of the ISDN topic, which I
have been disconnected from for more than 2 years now, to make this
tail of a thread more helpful maybe.
I agree that later release notes could have mentioned it but neither
did
Hi v...@freebsd.org!
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:01:55 +0200; v...@freebsd.org wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
On 09/07/10 23:31, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For
Hi Doug Barton!
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:37:07 -0700; Doug Barton wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
Just to clarify
Hi Mark Linimon!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 07:30:19 +; Mark Linimon wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP:
FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':
The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
For a practical reasons, it works but slow is better than
doesn't work at all (due to
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:24:11 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Because the original I4B code didn't
work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix
that, the code had to be removed.
No. The code needn't removal, the stack should be modified to be fast without
Hi John Baldwin!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:42:28 -0400; John Baldwin wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)':
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 6:24:11 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Because the original I4B code didn't
work without
on 08/09/2010 17:01 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
Big thanks for your work, but unfortunately, the problem itself is not ISDN or
network stack, it is deeper. It is the policy or may be style of thought,
discourse. Something like:
progress dictates we need fix/maintainership to feature
[ Trimming cc's a bit ]
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:01:22 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Hi John Baldwin!
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:42:28 -0400; John Baldwin wrote about 'Re: Policy for
removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs
coming soon)':
On Wednesday
John Baldwin wrote:
[ Trimming cc's a bit ]
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:01:22 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Big thanks for your work, but unfortunately, the problem itself is not ISDN or
network stack, it is deeper. It is the policy or may be style of thought,
discourse. Something like:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 03:31:11PM +0100, Mark Blackman wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
[ Trimming cc's a bit ]
On Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:01:22 am Vadim Goncharov wrote:
Big thanks for your work, but unfortunately, the problem itself is not
ISDN or
network stack, it is deeper.
Erik Trulsson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 03:31:11PM +0100, Mark Blackman wrote:
On top of which, I'd say that the general philosopy is always that
you stick with the release that works for you. Surely the people who
need those ISDN drivers, simply stay with the release that works for
34 matches
Mail list logo
