cvs commit: src/lib/libc/gen fts-compat.c fts-compat.h

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0708251703550.19091 at sea.ntplx.net>
            Daniel Eischen <eischen at vigrid.com> writes:
: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Ken Smith wrote:
: 
: >
: > [ Not bothering to include references for the entire thread, go back and
: > read them if you really want to... ]
: >
: > I want Yar's work to proceed as planned please.  My reasons are:
: 
: No offense, but some things have been going in without being discussed
: an -arch or -current.  Approval for committing still has to go through
: re@, but that doesn't mean that changes shouldn't be vetted elsewhere
: prior to being sent to re@ approval.

Can you be specific?

Also, we shouldn't be making it this hard to use versioned symbols.
The last thing we want is for it to be perceived as a fight to get one
into the tree.  If that's the perception, then people are less likely
to do the right thing in the future.  We should instead embrace the
change, document the right thing to do and use it as a dry-run to work
out the kinks in the process.

Yar's change fell into a grey area.  Reasonable people could differ as
to the time that the ABI became 'official'.  Is it with the release?
Or is it when symbol versioning was turned on?  Or maybe when the code
freeze happened.  Clearly it wasn't before symbol versioning was
enabled, and it can't be after the release.  Why not now?  Why not let
the RE@ make the call when he reasonably believes the right time is?
We delegated the release process to him and his team so the whole
community doesn't micromanage it to death, introduce changes at a bad
time, etc, etc, etc.  Why can't we let him decide the exact boundaries
and make this grey area less grey?

Warner