3 ms·

You're just being disingenuous, what does that help? It's clearly an error on the part of the kernel if the owner of said kernel has specific expectations of b

You're just being disingenuous, what does that help? It's clearly an error on the part of the kernel if the owner of said kernel has specific expectations of behaviour on upgrade with respect to user spaces and those are not being met.

delroth 9y ago
It is just as disingenuous as saying "details don't matter". bonzini's comment was saying a line needs to be drawn, and I agree with that. It's pretty clear the line needs to not include "breaking on version number updates", less clear what it also needs to not include.
- _jal 9y ago
  No, in fact, it is pretty obvious, at least to people doing kernel dev. The contract in this case is that there will always be a version number, and anyone who expects it not to change is an idiot or just being obtuse.
  - bonzini 9y ago
    Well, I do kernel dev. I am the maintainer of KVM. :) > anyone who expects it not to change is an idiot or just being obtuse If this was the case, Microsoft would have never had to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 (see below in another comment: "starts with Windows 9" was used in the wild to detect Windows 95/98).
    - _jal 9y ago
      Eh? The version number changed. MSFT just changed to something not completely predictable in advance. Or am I missing your point?
      - bonzini 9y ago
        They _had_ to change it to "10" because there was existing code in the wild that misbehaved for a hypothetical Windows 9.
        _jal 9y ago
        I still don't get it; either I'm remarkably dense today, or there's a disconnect. I wrote: > anyone who expects it not to change And you appear to be using an example of a version-change curiosity as a counterexample. It is not a counterexample, because the version number in question changed from 8 to 10. In my original formulation, anyone who claimed to worry that the number would stay 8 forever was being an idiot or being obtuse. I think that holds up. It was not part of my comment, but someone who expected it to be 9 would not be an idiot or obtuse, because that would have been a reasonable guess, absent additional information. They were expecting it to change but were surprised by an exceptional circumstance. But this is getting a bit silly; there may be someone out there who thinks version numbers should be immutable across versions, but I bet they're pretty lonely. It was an example picked up while making a wider point.

delroth 9y ago

It is just as disingenuous as saying "details don't matter". bonzini's comment was saying a line needs to be drawn, and I agree with that. It's pretty clear the line needs to not include "breaking on version number updates", less clear what it also needs to not include.

_jal 9y ago
No, in fact, it is pretty obvious, at least to people doing kernel dev. The contract in this case is that there will always be a version number, and anyone who expects it not to change is an idiot or just being obtuse.
- bonzini 9y ago
  Well, I do kernel dev. I am the maintainer of KVM. :) > anyone who expects it not to change is an idiot or just being obtuse If this was the case, Microsoft would have never had to skip from Windows 8 to Windows 10 (see below in another comment: "starts with Windows 9" was used in the wild to detect Windows 95/98).
  - _jal 9y ago
    Eh? The version number changed. MSFT just changed to something not completely predictable in advance. Or am I missing your point?
    - bonzini 9y ago
      They _had_ to change it to "10" because there was existing code in the wild that misbehaved for a hypothetical Windows 9.
      - _jal 9y ago
        I still don't get it; either I'm remarkably dense today, or there's a disconnect. I wrote: > anyone who expects it not to change And you appear to be using an example of a version-change curiosity as a counterexample. It is not a counterexample, because the version number in question changed from 8 to 10. In my original formulation, anyone who claimed to worry that the number would stay 8 forever was being an idiot or being obtuse. I think that holds up. It was not part of my comment, but someone who expected it to be 9 would not be an idiot or obtuse, because that would have been a reasonable guess, absent additional information. They were expecting it to change but were surprised by an exceptional circumstance. But this is getting a bit silly; there may be someone out there who thinks version numbers should be immutable across versions, but I bet they're pretty lonely. It was an example picked up while making a wider point.