svn commit: r334939 - head/stand/lua

[Warner Losh]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Devin Teske <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.
>
> The timeline I suggested is more amenable to actually crossing the finish
> line with a fully-functional drop-in replacement.
> --
> Devin
>