On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> What's the potential breakage?
None that I know of..
if you don't use it, it can't break..
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >
> > I admit that it doesn't seem a minor addition, but
> > I'd like ot get netgraph down -nto 3.x now that it has been shaken down a
> > bit in 4.x
> >
> > reasons:
> > 1/ DSL in Canada is now switching rapidly to PPPoE.
> > 2/ PPP will start using it soon (other than with pppoe)
> > and we'd like ONE version not 2 for Brian to maintain.
> > 3/ ISPs who may wan tto use the PPPOE server side are generally running
> > 3.x, not 4.x
> >
> >
> > Supporting facts:
> > Netgraph is written to generally be non intrusive.
> > No code is changed in the non "options NETGRAPH" case and only minor
> > changes are made in normal code paths in the NETGRAPH case.
> > (with the exception of the if_sr and if_ar drivers)
> >
> > I might hold off on some of the more intrusive of those
> > changes (e.g. no real need to add it to netstat immediatly)
> > which will not really effect the functionality.
> >
> >
> > And last but not least:
> > We are actually developing Netgraph under 3.3 so we are already keeping
> > two source trees in sync, 3.3. and 4.0 so we might as well let others get
> > at it.
> >
> > Anyone violently object?
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
