[ first, is there a reason we have stable@ CCed on this thread ? ] On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 07:26:24PM +1100, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > You are probably so upset because I stepped on code you worked hard > > on. But the IPv6 semantics should not have been different from IPv4 > > and the disable_ipv6 flag was a poor API choice as well. Legacy > > API's suck, I don't expect perfection but it should be possible > > to make a working version that: > > > > Allows disabling IPv6 completely on an interface > > AND Has the same address and route semantics for both > > IPv4 and IPv6. > > Also for application sanity, Linux should behave the same as BSD
Stephen, while I agree with all the points you made, David is right in that we can't use a fix for a bug as a justification for breaking something that worked for other people. It simply means that everything that was merged since the first regression was introduced should be reverted and reworked until a more satisfying solution is found. Otherwise users lose trust and you have to deal with much more cases when users report issues. If the bug is caused by a deep design issue, then maybe a development branch should be dedicated to it so that the persons affected by it can track its evolution and report some feedback. Regards, Willy _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
