On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > Someone just pinged me on this and I figured I should bring it up. > > > > 1 - Is anyone out there still using oldnfs due to unresolved > > problems with the new one? (I am not aware of any outstanding > > issues in the new nfs that don't exist in the oldnfs.) > > 2 - Does anyone see a problem with getting rid of oldnfs for > > FreebSD-11? > > 3 - If I get rid of it in -head, I can do it either in mid-December > > or mid-April. (I can't do commits during the winter.) > > Does anyone have a rough idea when the 11.0 release cycle will > > start, so I can choose which of the above would be preferable? > > (I figured I'd wait until after the last 10.n release that happens > > before 11.0, since it will be easier to MFC before the removal of > > oldnfs.) > > > > Thanks in advance for any comments, rick > > ps: John, I've cc'd you since I thought you are the guy most likely to > > need to do commits/MFCs to oldnfs. > > I think removing it is fine, but as early as possible (as John says) to give > our -CURRENT users time to stop working around bugs and start reporting them > :-).
I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and client, around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8. If this reason is still valid, oldnfs have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for developers. I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches. Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
