svn commit: r334939 - head/stand/lua

[Devin Teske]

> On Jun 11, 2018, at 5:32 PM, Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske <dteske at freebsd.org <mailto:dteske at freebsd.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Devin Teske <dteske at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Devin Teske <dteske at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 10, 2018, at 6:32 PM, Kyle Evans <kevans at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Author: kevans
>>>>> Date: Mon Jun 11 01:32:18 2018
>>>>> New Revision: 334939
>>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334939
>>>>> 
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> lualoader: Allow brand-*.lua for adding new brands
>>>>> 
>>>>> dteske@, I believe, had originally pointed out that lualoader failed
>>>>> to
>>>>> allow logo-*.lua for new logos to be added. When correcting this
>>>>> mistake, I
>>>>> failed to do the same for brands.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> You’re doing an amazing job, Kyle.
>>>> 
>>>> I continually see nothing but genuine effort toward feature parity which
>>>> makes me think one day I can pass the reigns.
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah, I will always love Forth. It will always hold a special place in my
>>>> heart as that whacky language that simultaneously exudes great power while
>>>> also having the image ability to induce vomiting 🤮 by the uninitiated.
>>>> 
>>>> However, all that being said, I’d actually like to keep the Ficl boot
>>>> stuff as an option through to 14.0 and here is why ...
>>>> 
>>>> Last year we were looking to update from ficl3 to ficl4. That may not
>>>> sound too exciting to most folks, but most folks don’t know the power that
>>>> ficl4 brings — like the capability to use full networking in the loader! Can
>>>> lua do that? How cool would it be to be able to communicate with the network
>>>> from the loader before the kernel is even loaded into memory? I had a few
>>>> hair-brained schemes left for Forth which might be exciting, lol
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The current boot loader can already communicate via NFS or TFTP today.
>>> Adding http would be easy, https would be harder due to crypto being huge
>>> and space being small (though bear ssl might be small enough).
>>> 
>>> The last articulated plan in arch@ was that LUA will be default in 12, and
>>> we plan to remove FORTH in 13. Last time I said it there in February, there
>>> was only email agreeing that I could find. This matches the in-person
>>> consensus poll I took at BSDcan as well. I think it would take a very
>>> extraordinary set circumstance and severe problems with LUA to change those
>>> plans.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At BSD Can there was the boot working group where we discussed that an FCP
>>> would be required to decide this.
>> 
>> 
>> In the working group you weren't listening and being rather combative and
>> demanding that I do stuff,
>> 
>> 
>> I think that's an unfair characterization of the situation, but it doesn't
>> matter -- that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> so I stopped talking.
>> 
>> 
>> Hopefully we can _start_ talking. As the principled author of this work, I
>> want to have a say in its deprecation since I still maintain that body of
>> work.
>> 
>> 
>> It should not be taken as a sign of my consent, but more a sign of not
>> wanting to get into a yelling match in public on a topic I thought had been
>> settled months ago.
>> 
>> 
>> Nobody asked *me* about how I would like to see *my* work removed from the
>> tree. I think I should have a say.
>> 
>> I think I've been pretty darn helpful in the process by providing
>> substantive and helpful feedback to not only Kyle but also on the GSoC
>> project etc. I've not stood in any ones way. For being so helpful, I would
>> expect a level respect in this matter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I raised my desires that I would like to be able to flip a knob in 13 and
>>> reboot between Ficl and Lua, back and forth.
>>> 
>>> Give people a choice until we have done a "shake-out" through an entire
>>> major version.
>>> 
>>> An honest-to-goodness procession would be, in my mind:
>>> 
>>> 13: Has both; both are installed. End-user can boot back and forth between
>>> the two
>>> 
>>> Problems that arise in one or the other are non-critical because there is
>>> always an "out" by running the other.
>>> 
>>> 14: Has both but both are not installed. The installer media doesn't even
>>> have it. You can't install the Forth booth stuff unless you twist a knob in
>>> buildworld, optionally going down the path of generating release media which
>>> has the Forth boot stuff.
>>> 
>>> 15. It's removed from tree. You can't build Forth boot. Lua only. No
>>> looking back, no way to build it with Forth, to get Ficl you need to go to
>>> ports. A Ficl with FreeBSD boot words no longer exists and is no longer
>>> maintained. All of bhyve userboot also therefore uses Lua.
>> 
>> 
>> That's way too long. 12 will have Lua by default, but you can build FORTH if
>> you want has been the plan since February when I socialized this on arch at . I
>> originally pitched coexistence, but there was little appetite for that.
>> 
>> So I think a FCP discussed in arch@ is the right path forward.
>> 
>> 
>> We sat on the GSoC for years. Why all of a sudden do we need to ship this in
>> less than 6 months?
>> 
>> There are new features in Forth for 12 and they work and Lua has not caught
>> up to them (e.g., Boot Environments in the loader menu) and you want to make
>> Lua the default in 12? This doesn't make sense.
> 
> I have no comments on the rest- this discussion should mostly occur on
> the FCP that will be drafted shortly. We added Boot Environment
> support months ago at this point, and also added some other cool
> feature like auto-detecting kernels in /boot/* to be presented in the
> kernel selector.
> 

Would you be willing to update here for the benefit of those in this thread...

Are you at feature parity yet?
-- 
Devin