svn commit: r220755 - in head: . contrib/gcc/doc contrib/gcc/objc contrib/libobjc etc/mtree gnu/lib gnu/lib/libobjc gnu/usr.bin/cc gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1obj gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc_tools gnu/usr.bin/cc/doc s...

[John Baldwin]

On Monday, April 18, 2011 3:59:45 pm Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:18 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
> > On 04/18/2011 11:14, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:06:42AM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:01 AM, Roman Divacky wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> please mark this in src/UPDATING, maybe bump freebsd_version too?
> >>> 
> >>> Please do not bump freebsd_version just for this.  Ports wishing to know 
can go off the last bump, if there are any.
> >>> 
> >>> Every freebsd_version bump forces rebuilding all modules and such and is 
a pita.
> >> 
> >> I agree that this is a PITA, but there also should be a way to force
> >> module load even on version bump. This is PITA especially for
> >> developers.
> > 
> > .... who make up a tiny percentage of the FreeBSD user community. 
Seriously? We're going to whine because version bumps cause a little extra 
compile time?
> 
> The problem usually manifests itself when I got to debug a new problem, load 
a driver and find I have to rebuild everything else to use it, which forces an 
extra reboot on the machine in question.  Sometimes this can be quite 
disruptive to other things that machine is doing.

But that is only true if your source tree doesn't match your installed world.  
If the new driver is standalone and you build it as a module, it will use the 
headers from /sys and will work fine.

If the new driver is part of the source tree, you do not have to upgrade the 
entire world, just build a kernel + moduleset, install that to /boot/foo and 
reboot into the foo kernel.  Yes, that can require a reboot, but lots of 
kernel development requires reboots.
 
> In this case, there was a new kernel thing just after, so it turned out OK.  
But let's not gratuitously bump the version since the granularity we have 
already allows the ports to make good choices on when to leave something in or 
out.

Except that that directly contradicts our previously established policy that 
these version bumps are cheap and that we should do more of them (this came up 
a few years ago when we changed the policy so that the new "stable" branch 
after a release starts at N + 500 (e.g. 802500) rather than N + 100 to give 
more room for version bumps on current).

-- 
John Baldwin