conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf

[Brooks Davis]

The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Brooks Davis <brooks at FreeBSD.org>
To: Florent Thoumie <flz at FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks at FreeBSD.org>, Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org>,
        Norikatsu Shigemura <nork at FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-bugs at FreeBSD.org,
        FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc at FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:01:09 -0600

 On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 > Brooks Davis wrote:
 > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 > >> Brooks Davis wrote:
 > >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
 > >>>> Brooks Davis wrote:
 > >>>>
 > >>>>> The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening.
 > >>>>> I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces
 > >>>>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in
 > >>>>> CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable.
 > >>>> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree
 > >>>> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and
 > >>>> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry
 > >>>> over usability.
 > >>> That would be fine.  I don't really care as long as it's deprecated.
 > >>>
 > >>> FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually
 > >>> set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of
 > >>> effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen
 > >>> is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should
 > >>> be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it.
 > >> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an
 > >> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was
 > >> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message
 > >> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in
 > >> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but
 > >> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7
 > >> is branched.
 > > 
 > > I'd say a warning in both.
 > 
 > Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but
 > this is for gif_interfaces only, right?
 
 That's what I'd do.  There's no reason to introduce support for an
 instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since
 gif_interfaces is the odd one out.
 
 -- Brooks