Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 08:32:46 -0500 From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <v02140b25ae5483fd77b6@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I think there's a problem on both sides, Richard's viewpoint is that >there should be a concensus that the new prototype will be adopted. On >the core side there's the viewpoint that they've enough to do without >worrying about the problem and making commitments to adopt something >that's not even down on paper yet. No, I see it as a more fundamental difference. I have been led to believe that the only acceptable "prototype" has to include the ability to build a complete release distribution from scratch. In order to do THAT, I don't have to build a "prototype", I have to implement the entire system. Further, they are unwilling to agree to adopt any incremental steps toward that goal until I have demonstrated the final product. If I misunderstand their position, I wish that someone would state a MINIMAL set of things that I would have to demonstrate to satisfy the "prototype" requirement sufficiently to allow me to start removing the roadblocks that are throughout the system. I view this process analogous to the situation where Apple moved the MacOS from 24-bit to 32-bit addressing. In that case, they had to examine every line of code and remove ALL the 24-bit dependancies before they could actually throw the 32-bit switch. While Apple was making that change, coding on other project did not come to a screeching halt. It continued, adhearing to the newer specification which was adopted long before 32-bit addressing was demonstrated.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?v02140b25ae5483fd77b6>