On 11/20/2012 10:27 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > On 11/20/12 11:43, Olivier Smedts wrote: >> 2012/11/20 Paul Webster <paul.g.webster_at_googlemail.com>: >>> I am aware this is a much discussed subject since the upgrade of PF, I >>> believe the final decision was that to many users are used to the old >>> style pf and an upgrade to the new syntax would cause to much confusion. >> >> But a change like this is expected in a new major branch, ie. >> 10-CURRENT. Not so in -STABLE branches of course. I don't see the >> problem here. >> >> Cheers >> > > What would be the alternative? Being stuck with the old PF? As Olivier > Smedts said, changes like that are expected in a complete new branch. If > people need to stay compatible, they are about to use 9.X as long as > they have migrated. The downside is more work. The bright side would be > development/progression. > > oh > Why not release pf2 as a port? Then those who want the new pf can use it, and those that want the old one can use it. Or, another option is a knob USE_NEWPF during buildworld will build the new pf, otherwise it'd build the old, default one. This way you can still introduce the change, but default to the old one for those of us who are too crusty to change. :) -- Chuck Burns <break19_at_gmail.com>Received on Tue Nov 20 2012 - 15:34:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC