James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
>>> While this is all true, I disagree that we should break these interfaces
>>> in S10u5 - we can mark them Obsolete and provide legacy support for the
>>> ndd paths.
>>>
>>>
>> I think that's what I said... mark them obsolete in S10u5, and maybe
>> remove them in Nevada.
>>
>
> That would be a good plan if this project had patch/micro release
> binding, but instead it has minor release binding.
>
> I don't think we should declare something to be "obsolete" in S10u5
> unless users have something to which they can migrate. Otherwise,
> we're just saying "don't use this ... but don't use anything else,
> either."
>
Okay, I agree with that logic. There needs to be overlap.
I wonder if a simplistic dladm wrapper around ndd can be developed for
S10u5, just so that we can obsolete the interfaces.... Perhaps that can
be a follow up project, but in the meantime I guess we need Brussels to
continue to provide NDD. :-(
-- Garrett
