MFC req for 5.x/5.3

[Ken Smith]

On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 01:12:33PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:

> Xin LI wrote:
> >Hi, Ken,
> >
> >On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:08:22PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>>>>>Revision  Changes    Path
> >>>>>>1.58      +1 -0      src/lib/libpthread/thread/thr_create.c
> >>>>>>1.14      +1 -1      src/lib/libpthread/thread/thr_find_thread.c
> >>>>>>1.115     +27 -10    src/lib/libpthread/thread/thr_kern.c
> >>>>>>1.119     +15 -11    src/lib/libpthread/thread/thr_private.h
> >>>>>>1.81      +1 -2      src/lib/libpthread/thread/thr_sig.c
> >>>>>>           
> >>>>>>
> >
> >JFYI: I have tested that a RELENG_5 with ``cvs up -A'' in 
> >src/lib/libpthread/
> >works quite well and I have tested these on my notebook (P4-M based).
> >
> 
> though this is not equivalent to doing a -A.. there are a few minor 
> differences not being MFC'd..

Yup.  That's why I thought we would need to be a little bit careful
with this, it's a bit more complicated than it first seems.  There
is a chance for example that a piece that's not being MFC-ed added
an extra #include and if the new code that's being MFC-ed relies on
that it can be a bit tough to catch with the first attempt.  My
asking for caution on this wasn't a reflection on Julian, I'd ask
anyone to be this careful about this particular MFC because it doesn't
look like it's a straight "MFC everything".  And doing an "MFC everything"
for a library like this is risky at the RC2 stage, it's possible pieces
of what gets swept in could have an impact (possibly negative) on the
packages that use it.  It would be a bit of a gamble.

Thanks for your work on this guys.  Greatly appreciated.

-- 
						Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to      |       kensmith at cse.buffalo.edu
  there, funny things are everywhere.   |
                      - Theodore Geisel |