[2054] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: comments on HP and BSDI problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Mon Dec 2 13:46:50 1996
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:46:29 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
To: Ezra Peisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>, krbdev@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Ezra Peisach's message of Mon, 02 Dec 1996 08:50:54 EST,
<9612021350.AA10580@kangaroo.mit.edu>
There's definitely no good hard and fast rule for "how much is enough".
I'd say that HP is an important enough platform that I think we should
put in a very low risk change (i.e. #ifdef hpux is much less likely to
break other architectures) into the 1.0 release. I wouldn't think that
BSDI or FreeBSD was important enough by themselves.
Here's a proposal. Tomorrow, we will make a single code thaw and
refreeze, wherein we'll only put extremely low risk, small-impact
changes for portability reasons. Things like #ifdef hpux are much safer
than adding a configure test, unless we're willing to retest on all
architectures, including those that we don't have direct access to.
This will give us three days to rebuild binary distributions for a
Friday 12/6 release.
As long as we are putting in architecture dependent, low risk fixes, IMO
this should be acceptable. What do other people think?
- Ted
