Greywolf wrote:
> That's a pretty lax call; I'd say that anything which affects kernel
> structures changing AT ALL, let alone on a significant level such as,
> oh, say, FILE SYSTEM STRUCTURE CHANGES, warrants a kernel indicator.

It does not affect general kernel structures. It affects code
for one file system, in that fs specific code. Would we bump kernel
version whenever random filesystem gets improved significantly?
We did not for LFS, and there is no reason to do for FFS/UFSv2, IMHO.
 
> I do hope there's a branch tag somewhere indicating that 'ufs2 starts
> here'.  I just backdated my source tree to 4/4/2003 23:00, just to make
> sure that I'm safe and can build to stability until the ufs2 (which
> should REALLY probably be called ffs4, but "hey, we didn't name it!")
> stuff can get fixed.

Very bad thing is that it very difficult to find out when exactly
the problem happens. Apparently most systems aren't affected at all.

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-