Re: RFC: getting rid of oldnfs

Kostik wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:43:28PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > 
> > > Someone just pinged me on this and I figured I should bring it
> > > up.
> > >
> > > 1 - Is anyone out there still using oldnfs due to unresolved
> > >    problems with the new one? (I am not aware of any outstanding
> > >    issues in the new nfs that don't exist in the oldnfs.)
> > > 2 - Does anyone see a problem with getting rid of oldnfs for
> > >    FreebSD-11?
> > > 3 - If I get rid of it in -head, I can do it either in
> > > mid-December
> > >    or mid-April. (I can't do commits during the winter.)
> > >    Does anyone have a rough idea when the 11.0 release cycle will
> > >    start, so I can choose which of the above would be preferable?
> > >    (I figured I'd wait until after the last 10.n release that
> > >    happens
> > >     before 11.0, since it will be easier to MFC before the
> > >     removal of
> > >     oldnfs.)
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any comments, rick
> > > ps: John, I've cc'd you since I thought you are the guy most
> > > likely to
> > >    need to do commits/MFCs to oldnfs.
> > 
> > I think removing it is fine, but as early as possible (as John
> > says) to give
> > our -CURRENT users time to stop working around bugs and start
> > reporting them
> > :-).
> 
> I remember the main reason for keeping oldnfs, both server and
> client,
> around in HEAD was to facilitate MFC of fixes to the branches which
> still use oldnfs, i.e. stable/8.  If this reason is still valid,
> oldnfs
> have to stay in HEAD till stable/8 is supported or interested for
> developers.
> 
> I usually do not like direct commits into the stable branches.
> Otherwise, I see no reason to keep oldnfs around.
> 
Well, the only commits I've done to "old" were bugfixes that applied
to both old and new.

John has been the main "fix the old NFS" guy lately. So, John, do you
anticipate more patches to the old NFS that need to be MFC'd down?

Thanks, rick