Subject: Re: Versioning config files
To: Hubert Feyrer <>
From: Quentin Garnier <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/02/2005 22:17:08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 09:12:03PM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Quentin Garnier wrote:
> >>Adding two digits for a `this day's version' still works until
> >>end of year 2147.
> >
> >There is a point in having several versions of config syntax *a day*?
> Sounds likely to me.

You probably didn't understand me.  I'm talking about versioning the
config(1) grammar itself, not the files themselves.

> >I mean, I want the versioning, but I sure hope there won't be as many
> >bumps as twice a year.
> Personally, I'd prefer to keep our tools and sources in sync.
> I imagine updating config(8) to handle older syntax doesn't help to make=
> the code better.

The intent is not to keep backward compatibility for its own sake.  The
idea is to make it easy to introduce features or make some changes and
not complain until we actually use them.

Typical example:  the 'no' stuff I've added recently.  Once/If we start
using it in the config files we have in the tree, then we will add a
version line and let older config(1) print a syntax error.  But
meanwhile, let's not change the tree and allow the versioned config(1)
to work with that tree.

Is the intent clearer when put that way?
> Maybe some general (re)design of this whole thing would be good.

Sure.  Any volunteers?

Quentin Garnier - -
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)