On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:15:32 +0100 Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
> [ 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 I made my attempt at fixing the issue, others can attack that mud pit. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
