Re: HEADS-UP new statfs structure

At 12:21 AM -0500 11/16/03, Jeff Roberson wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>  > Or maybe the real problem is that we claim that there will
>  > be no API/ABI changes after X.0-RELEASE, and we've really
>>  missed that mark with 5.0-RELEASE, for a variety of reasons.
>>  If we're going to keep missing that mark with the 6.x-series,
>>  then we should plan to do something to make life a little
>  > less painful.
>
>The API and ABI are frozen when we make 5.x-STABLE and
>branch 6.x.  Until then it's open to change.  This was
>decided up front.

Hmm, Yes it was.  I was mixing up the time of X.0-RELEASE
and making the branch for <X+1>-current.  Good point.

Please note that I'm not unhappy with any of these changes.
I think they're all very good to get in.  But we do have
hundreds of developers trying to track -current, and I
think we'd get some productivity boost whenever we can
make these changes a little smoother.  As I mentioned
earlier, it's only going to get worse as we have more
developers trying to contribute.  Developers that we *do*
want to be tracking -current...

<aside>
And to mention just one change that I'm particularly happy
with, the change so a single kernel works on both SMP and
single-processor systems has already saved me some grief.
My hardware problems were (temporarily) solved by replacing
my dual-CPU board with a single-CPU one.  I'd be in even
more pain today if it wasn't for that change!  I still
haven't figured out what I'll do with the 4.9-stable
system on this machine...

[disclaimer: today has been a long day for me, all spent
  rebuilding freebsd systems from this hardware headache.
  I just now finished successfully upgrading the last 5.x
  system I have (it just booted up as I am typing this).
  So don't mind me too much...]
</aside>

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad_at_gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad_at_freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih_at_rpi.edu