Feature Freeze Friday

[Eric S. Raymond]

Gary E. Miller via devel <devel at ntpsec.org>:
> Hal Murray via devel <devel at ntpsec.org> wrote:
> > I think you should revert the long double change and wait until
> > post-release to clean up that area - not just the precision part but
> > the whole clock adjusting area.
> 
> Oh, please, no.  It is stable, except for the NetBSD 6 thing.  It fixed
> a bunch of issues and starting over could take weeks.
> 
> Consensus seems to be to go for timespec(64) direcctly after 1.0.

I concur.  According to our analysis, long double is not better than double
in the way I mistakenly believed, but it's no worse either.  The change was not
toxic, merely ineffective.

Reverting it would be exacly the kind of poke-the-possible-hornet's-nest
change that we should be avoiding.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170915/9cfb82ed/attachment.bin>