cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/boot0 boot0ext.s src/sys/boot/i386/boot0ext Makefile

[David O'Brien]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:14:59PM -1000, juli mallett wrote:
> > > >>This has a bug that I've fixed in a p4 branch.  You could have
> > > >>found that out if you had asked me first.
> > > >
> > > >I plan to commit what you have from p4.  But I wanted this to be an
> > > >exact copy of rev 1.22, so that if we can agree to go with the 2-sector
> > > >boot0 for 6.0, it would be easier to see the changes.
> > > >
> > > >Please feel free to commit what you have in perforce, since it will be a
> > > >little bit until I can.
> > > 
> > > Since you seem to be concerned about preserving history, could bringing
> > > this file back have been done as a repo-copy?
> > 
> > Not as you might expect.  I expect for 6.0, that 'boot0.s' will be the
> > 2-sector one.  Thus there will a diversion fork, I can't think of a way
> > around it.  But I'm trying to make it as easy to follow as possible.
> 
> If this is JHB's thing, and he's got it in P4, wouldn't it be
> better to let him take the lead and coordinate this than doing it
> in some way you find convenient?


Sorry, but I'd like to have a useful boot0 -- one that tells me my
partition is something other than "???".  That can't be done with a
1-sector boot0.  No one complained when boot0sio.s was added, I don't see
why boot0ext.s is becoming a federal case.  Geez.  I figured people would
have greatly preferred how I did this vs. making boot0.s the 2-sector
version.

As far as I can tell, boot0 isn't at the top of JHB interest list right
now.  I personally have to tripple boot a laptop daily, so it is a large
interest of mine.  I also know of another committer who expressed
interest in folding boot0sio.s into boot0ext.s so that we could 'cvs rm'
boot0sio.s.

> I'm not sure that having 3 places where the history of this file will
> be is appealing, especially if you are making this fork in CVS for
> purely an ephemeral manner.  I do not find that a very attractive
> solution.

Perforce history does not exist.  It is not the official project SCM.
Things done in perforce are the same as things done on a committers
private hard disk.  Extracting things out of perforce is also a PITA.
Again, things don't exist for the project unless they are in CVS.
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)