[ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and read them if you really want to... ]
I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please. My reasons are:
1) He is following the exact procedure we will be using from now
on when an incompatible change to a library function is made
for the first time in HEAD between releases. If, after
making this change, he was to decide that some other minor
change needed to be made and we hadn't done a release yet
it could be argued he shouldn't repeat this process and
that's just "Life using -current". The arguments against
him doing this now have been based on "we already bumped
libc's version number so it's dealt with". That's based
on our old way of doing things. On can argue we begin the
new way of doing things after 7.0 is out the door but one
can argue equally well that it started at the point we
turned on symbol versioning.
2) His timing with the fts(3) change was total coincidence but
I was happy to see it come along. Symbol versioning is a
new thing for 7.0. I'M HAPPY WE'RE HAVING A LIVE TEST OF
IT BEFORE WE DO THE RELEASE. Even if Yar wasn't following
the procedures we'll normally be following post symbol
versioning being enabled (which I feel he is) I'm willing
to defend what he's doing now as a special case in the
interests of doing this live test of a new feature.
That said I'm with Warner and Yar (and I believe Alfred was in there
too). Unless I'm drastically mistaken about what the "promises" of
symbol versioning had been Yar is currently following the exact
procedure someone doing this sort of change should be doing in HEAD now
that symbol versioning is enabled. And as I said with my re@ hat on I'm
happy this is getting a "live test" before 7.0 gets released.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodore Geisel |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
