On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 01:42:20PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On 24 October 2014 12:17, Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > I only see real value in that if we're actually building and testing > it on HEAD on a regular basis though. If we don't build it by default > on HEAD and don't generally test it there, I think we're actually > worse off to commit changes to HEAD first and then MFC.
We do build both (old) nfsclient and nfsserver, at least as modules. _______________________________________________ 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"
