|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Terry Lambert
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Posts: 434
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:50 am Post subject:
Re: Removing wait union
|
|
|
Mike Barcroft wrote:
| Quote: | Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
These are the ports which built on the last 5.0 run the other day but
failed this time around. There are others hidden by dependencies
which fail to build; I can give you an updated list once things like
XFree86 and C++ include directories get fixed.
[...]
For anyone watching this thread, I just sent Kris 15 patches for these
ports. Most uses were far more trivial than in the base system.
|
Ugh. You are as bad as Alfred.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Garance A Drosihn
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 190
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:51 am Post subject:
Re: Avoiding unnecessary breakage (was Re: Removing wait union)
|
|
|
At 5:51 PM -0700 6/4/02, Bakul Shah wrote:
| Quote: | Note that some of the changes we are talking about are being
done to conform to standards. It isn't just "random bit rot",
I am *not* suggesting people are making changes for the sake
of changes. What I am suggesting is that the common theme of
"making the customers' life easy" is either missing or there
is no agreement about just who the customer is.
|
I should have added a bit more background in my previous
message, so that what I was saying would make a bit more
sense...
I'm a relatively new committer to freebsd (IMO, at least).
When I was learning the ropes, I did have several other
committers who made a point of stating (to me) that
incompatible changes had to be eased into the system. Thus,
I do believe that there is some agreement on how such changes
should be handled. It's even in the committers guide, iirc.
If anyone *asks* how should such-and-such be changed, there
is often much advice given on how to ease the change in.
That's what is happening with the 'union wait' change, for
instance. Kris *is* offering to do a ports-build to find
most of the ports which would break, before the actual
change is made. Mike *did* write up patches for all of
the base-system things which would need to change, before
making the major change.
That's really the point I wanted to make. Sometimes we
(as a project) *are* trying to do a good job, but we're so
upset about "those other changes" that we don't give people
credit when developers do make the extra effort to ease a
change into place.
If you want to make changes in a group of volunteers, then
I think you need to encourage and commend the behavior you're
looking for. I think that works better than proposing new
rules, regulations, and bureaucracy to abolish the behavior
that is troubling.
| Quote: | Brian Somers writes:
Many software vendors would say that a published interface
can only be removed after two major releases of the software.
Right idea but I am not too keen on such hard and fast rules.
The issue is sticking to rules and self-policing just doesn't
work for most people.
|
Aside: I would also say that I feel that "two major releases"
might be a bit too painful for changes in the freebsd project,
if you're talking about major releases being 3.0 vs 4.0. We
have people who don't stay as active developers for the length
of time it takes FreeBSD to make it thru two major releases...
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Kargl
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 12:57 am Post subject:
Re: Removing wait union
|
|
|
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:50:03PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Barcroft wrote:
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
These are the ports which built on the last 5.0 run the other day but
failed this time around. There are others hidden by dependencies
which fail to build; I can give you an updated list once things like
XFree86 and C++ include directories get fixed.
[...]
For anyone watching this thread, I just sent Kris 15 patches for these
ports. Most uses were far more trivial than in the base system.
Ugh. You are as bad as Alfred.
|
In what respect?
At least Mike has supplied Kris some fixes for
problems while all you supply is commentary on
terryBSD.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alfred Perlstein
*nix forums addict
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 1:15 am Post subject:
Re: Removing wait union
|
|
|
* Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> [020604 19:50] wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Barcroft wrote:
Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> writes:
These are the ports which built on the last 5.0 run the other day but
failed this time around. There are others hidden by dependencies
which fail to build; I can give you an updated list once things like
XFree86 and C++ include directories get fixed.
[...]
For anyone watching this thread, I just sent Kris 15 patches for these
ports. Most uses were far more trivial than in the base system.
Ugh. You are as bad as Alfred.
|
heh,
*clang*
stupid
*clang*
round
*smash*
peg
*bang*
and
*crunch*
stupid
*smash*
square
*whack*
hole
*thunk*
!!!
--
-Alfred
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Lambert
*nix forums Guru
Joined: 19 Mar 2002
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 2:07 am Post subject:
Re: Removing wait union
|
|
|
Steve Kargl wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 07:50:03PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Mike Barcroft wrote:
For anyone watching this thread, I just sent Kris 15 patches for these
ports. Most uses were far more trivial than in the base system.
Ugh. You are as bad as Alfred.
In what respect?
|
In supplying large numbers of patches quickly.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Somers
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 04 Apr 2002
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Avoiding unnecessary breakage (was Re: Removing wait union)
|
|
|
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002 22:51:20 -0400, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | Brian Somers writes:
Many software vendors would say that a published interface
can only be removed after two major releases of the software.
Right idea but I am not too keen on such hard and fast rules.
The issue is sticking to rules and self-policing just doesn't
work for most people.
Aside: I would also say that I feel that "two major releases"
might be a bit too painful for changes in the freebsd project,
if you're talking about major releases being 3.0 vs 4.0. We
have people who don't stay as active developers for the length
of time it takes FreeBSD to make it thru two major releases...
|
Well, if developers don't hang around long enough to see their changes
through to completion, that's our (FreeBSD's) problem. We can't push
the problem onto the users of our platform.
A company that develops software doesn't expect to have to employ
software engineers (to redevelop their software) for an OS upgrade - an
OS upgrade that we're essentially forcing on them because of our
frequent releases and our inability to support all but the latest of
those releases.
--
Brian <brian@Awfulhak.org> <brian.somers@sun.com>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org> <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour ! <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Garance A Drosihn
*nix forums Guru Wannabe
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 190
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 7:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Avoiding unnecessary breakage (was Re: Removing wait union)
|
|
|
At 7:24 PM +0100 6/5/02, Brian Somers wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote:
Aside: I would also say that I feel that "two major releases"
might be a bit too painful for changes in the freebsd project,
if you're talking about major releases being 3.0 vs 4.0.
A company that develops software doesn't expect to have to
employ software engineers (to redevelop their software) for
an OS upgrade - an OS upgrade that we're essentially forcing
on them because of our frequent releases and our inability
to support all but the latest of those releases.
|
I agree that we could do a better job of smoothing in the
transition of some incompatible changes. But it is my feeling
that "major releases" are probably not the best way to set the
timescale for those transitions. 2.0 -> 3.0 took four years,
3.0 -> 4.0 took a little less than two years, and it looks
like 4.0 -> 5.0 will take more than two and a half years.
That rule would imply that if we decide right now to make an
incompatible change, then we couldn't stop supporting "the
old way" for at least four years (ie, for two major releases).
I agree would be very fine thing to do for our users, but
realistically I think that is *much* too big a job for us
(as a project) to commit to.
I am not sure what a good measure would be. Maybe "four official
releases" (ie, four of the .1 releases). Maybe "one major and
one minor release". Maybe just "two years worth of releases".
I don't know what would work best. But we should set it to
something that we really can achieve as a volunteer project,
and something we would expect to apply to the *entire* project,
consistently. There isn't any point in setting some target
which sounds good as a marketting claim, but which we would
never actually live up to.
Note that as a customer of freebsd, the oldest release I have
running in production is 4.2, and I'm getting uneasy about how
old that is. As a developer, I also have a 3.5.1 system that
I can boot up in vmware. If you talk about supporting anything
older than that, then you've crossed the line for how much
work I'm willing to do for this project.
Well, I've probably rambled on too long about this, without
really coming up with any good solution. Just some observations
and my opinions.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David O'Brien
*nix forums beginner
Joined: 06 Jun 2002
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:16 pm Post subject:
Re: Avoiding unnecessary breakage (was Re: Removing wait union)
|
|
|
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 05:37:23PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
| Quote: | I agree that we could do a better job of smoothing in the
transition of some incompatible changes. But it is my feeling
that "major releases" are probably not the best way to set the
timescale for those transitions. 2.0 -> 3.0 took four years,
|
"major releases" in the version 2 days were X.Y. Thus you need to
compaire 2.0[.0]->2.1.0->2.2.0->3.0.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 5:55 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Credit Card | Credit Counseling | Magazine Subscriptions | Mobile Phones | Beijing Olympic
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Unix/Linux blog |
electronics forum |
medicine forum |
science forum |
|
|
Privacy Policy
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
*nix
»
BSD
»
FreeBSD
»
mail-lists
»
Architecture
