On Jun 29, 2004, at 4:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <40DF2607.5020409_at_mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes: >> In other words, I care quite a bit about how "working, supported >> functionality" gets transitioned to "no longer available". I'm not >> happy with >> the notion of "supported" -> "HEADS UP" -> one week -> gone. > > I don't think anybody would be happy with that, and that is not what > was proposed in this case. OK. While I thought your original "HEADS UP" was clear, perhaps you had a less abrupt transition plan in mind. If you suggested that the ibcs/svr4 compatibility stuff should be marked depreciated for 5.3, and give people until 5.4 time find someone willing to do maintenance for the code, or give someone time to move this functionality to ports, or find some other alternative, that might receive more positive feedback. > The future of ibcs2 and svr4 has been in doubt for a long time (and > still is pending developer attention), but appearantly most of the > previous discussion and warnings have not been noticed: [ ...cvs annotate... ] > Searching the major mailing lists (bugs, stable, current etc) failed > to return any hits about this. End-users may not read /usr/src/UPDATING or the published release notes either, but at least those are the places they are _expected_ to look at if they want to know what is changing. I don't think we can reasonably expect an end-user to look though the output of "cvs annotate"... :-) -- -ChuckReceived on Tue Jun 29 2004 - 15:11:07 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:59 UTC