On Thursday, March 12, 2015 04:07:54 PM Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 02/28/15 13:28, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:23:10 PM Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 08:25:59PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> A> [snip] > >> A> > >> A> I think Mike's approach is good - it makes it easy to MFC to 10.2 > >> A> since there's extended lifecycle stuff to do there - and then we can > >> A> plan out how do the "betterer" fix after it's landed and churned > >> A> things. > >> > >> ... and we will be ought to support the "betterer" fix along with > >> the "not so betterer" for a very long time. > >> > >> The rock on which we split in this argument is that some developers > >> write their code for stable/x and then forward-port it to head, > >> focused on quality of result for stable/x; while other developers > >> do the opposite: write code to head, then consider or not consider > >> merging it stable/x. > > > > No, this is not quite true. Some folks have to write drivers on HEAD but > > also > > support running those drivers on older branches. The MFC's get harder when > > you have very different APIs on the different branches. It's already harder > > to test stat changes now since it requires completely different patches for > > <= 10 (the only thing people are supposed to use in production) vs head due > > to > > if_getcounter() and friends. Also, since 11 won't be out until 2016, that > > is > > far, far too long to wait for more media types. The stuff we need to > > support > > is already shipping in products today. We can't not support these in 10 > > (and > > possibly 9). > > > > Any news on this issue? Is anyone working on a solution for -head ?
I believe a variant of Mike's patch is in phabricator now? -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"