> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 11:30:05 2002 > Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:27:32 -0700 (MST) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING > From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 02:45:04 2002 > : > Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:39:35 -0700 (MST) > : > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > : > Subject: Re: [PATCH] note the __sF change in src/UPDATING > : > From: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > > : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : > : Hear hear, I agree. There's no need to expose what ought to be > : > : "private" data to the world, especially when we can get the additional > : > : benefit here of letting us play with the implementation. > : > > : > -current already does this. The problem is that we're trying to shoot > : > the bad access in the head, and that is what is screwing people. So > : > the problem isn't that we're trying to export private data to the > : > world. Quite the contrary, we're trying to eliminate it and having > : > growing pains. > : > : Exactly. That's why I'm arguing against putting __sF back (or > : adopting equally crapulent measures). Growing pains are a necessary evil. > : (I also agree that we probably ought to staticize any other things of > : this nature while we're at it and get the pain over with.) > > Yes, but this is too painful. If we were going to do this, the time > for the pain was 6-9 months ago, not just before the release.
Yeah, that's true. I think unfortunately we ought to wait and do it next cycle, but when we do, do it completely and as quickly as possible. - @ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
