FreeBSD ??-?-RELEASE matching vs. zpool create -o compatibility= use

Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com> wrote on
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 01:16:01 UTC :
[For a different subject.]

> . . .
> 
> Related question: what zfs branch is stable/14 going to track? With 13 it
> was whatever the next stable branch was.

I've a somewhat related question, using 13.2-RELEASE as an
example of my general question.

FreeBSD 13.2-RELEASE releng/13.2-n254617-525ecfdad597 GENERIC

generates:

# zpool version
ZFS filesystem version: 5
ZFS storage pool version: features support (5000)
zfs-2.1.9-FreeBSD_g92e0d9d18
zfs-kmod-2.1.9-FreeBSD_g92e0d9d18

but there is only:

# ls -C1 /usr/share/zfs/compatibility.d/openzfs*freebsd
/usr/share/zfs/compatibility.d/openzfs-2.0-freebsd
/usr/share/zfs/compatibility.d/openzfs-2.1-freebsd

No openzfs-2.1.9-freebsd file is available for use
with the likes of the notation:

-o compatibility=openzfs-2.1.9-freebsd

Such presumably would also enable (based on an
what is reported for an existing
openzfs-2.1-freebsd style pool):

# zpool get all | grep feature@ | grep disabled
zoptb  feature@edonr                  disabled                       local
zoptb  feature@zilsaxattr             disabled                       local
zoptb  feature@head_errlog            disabled                       local
zoptb  feature@blake3                 disabled                       local

but there would be a named compatibility assignment
available for that.

It is normal for me to hold compatibility at what some
FreeBSD ??.?-RELEASE (and later) supports, even for
main based systems (my normal context). (I do not know
how common that personal policy is in the world.) I
stick to the most recent that is official in the
??.?-RELEASE's

/usr/share/zfs/compatibility.d/

Would it be appropriate for 13.2-RELEASE (e.g.) to
have such a:

/usr/share/zfs/compatibility.d/openzfs-2.1.9-freebsd

that would match the FreeBSD release but that
eventually would not list everything stable/13 or
main would eventually support?

( stable/13 and main would then also end up with
the file being present as well. But I'm working
backwards from the end result to how to get there. )

Note: One could imagine a openzfs-2.1.10-freebsd
in releng/14.0 that did not list block_cloning, even
if there was (only) an odd way to get block_cloning
enabled for testing purposes.

===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com