Getting Involved

[Ermal Luçi]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Greg Hennessy <Greg.Hennessy at nviz.net> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> That doesn't sound unreasonable, bearing in mind how much we all $ENJOY using the operating system precisely because the interfaces are defined and stable between major releases.
> I would not have expected PF 4.7 and above to be backported.
>
> Reading between the lines of earlier posts I was getting the impression that in case of PF it had been decided to set the 4.5 version of PF in stone for now and ever more in FreeBSD.
> Could be the wrong end of the stick on my part though.

Thinking from an concurreny context, the latest version in OpenBSD is
'easier' to adapt.
Less critical datastructure to teach about concurrency...

Though the real issue with the later versions is that the guys are
just, almost, 'embedding' pf(4) into OpenBSD kinda ipfw(4) used to be
in the old days on FreeBSD.

> ________________________________________
> From: owner-freebsd-pf at freebsd.org [owner-freebsd-pf at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Peter Jeremy [peterjeremy at acm.org]
> Sent: 27 January 2012 10:55
> To: Walt Elam
> Cc: freebsd-pf at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Getting Involved
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The whole problem is that the new syntax is not backward compatible
> with the old syntax.  There has recently been a fairly long thread in
> -hackers discussing (in part) the need for long-term stability of
> interfaces.  The FreeBSD Project offers interface stability within
> major versions, therefore an incompatible change in PF syntax could
> not be introduced into any FreeBSD-9 or earlier branch.
>
> It would seem a reasonable goal to port pf 4.7 (or later) into -current
> so it will form part of 10.x but I can't see it appearing in 9.x.
>
> --
> Peter Jeremy_______________________________________________
> freebsd-pf at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"



-- 
Ermal