On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 02:20:30PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > You can do better than this. Put the lock in FILE, and define a new > structure FILE_old, which has the same size/layout as the old FILE > structure. How is this more acceptable than bumping the major number? Are they really so precious that they can only be incremented once for a release cycle? Seems to me that a new major number is far cleaner than a gross hack. - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- -CURRENT is bad for me... John Indra
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me..... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Daniel Eischen
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Alex Zepeda
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Peter Wemm
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for ... Mike Smith
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Alex Zepeda
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Dag-Erling Smorgrav
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... David O'Brien
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... Warner Losh
- Re: -CURRENT is bad for me... John Indra