Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:08:10 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), wollman@lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anybody using netns? Message-ID: <199602122008.NAA19822@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199602121954.MAA20651@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199602121945.MAA19759@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199602121954.MAA20651@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Unless someone else is both currently using this code /and/ willing to > > > > maintain it for us (which includes at a minimum eliminating the kernel > > > > compilation warnings), it will be nuked in a day or so. > > > > > > > > Speak now or forever hold your peace! > > > > > > Why remove things that are optional, but not present by default? > > > > Tree bloat. Why not make things 'smaller' given that the things that > > make it bigger are useless (un-maintained, un-compilable, etc..) given > > that the sources to those objects are still publically available in the > > CVS tree to anyone who is interested in them. > > Tree bloat is not an excuse. If you don't like it, don't copy it/check > it out. Which just happened by default. By default, it was checked out, and now the default behavior is to have it not checked out. So, Garrett changed the default behavior. :) > "Nuke" did not sound like it was to remain in the CVS tree. I think you are back-pedalling. When have we *ever* removed something from the CVS tree in the entire history of FreeBSD (except for the USL thing which was forced upon us for legal reasons). > > Obviously it's more difficult to look at them now, but should the > > majority of the people using the system by 'penalized' (wasting their > > disk space, etc..) to allow access to old, stale code? > > If they don't want to waste space on it, they don't have to copy it onto > their disk. Or they can simply remove it. Like I do with IDE drivers > on most of the production systems I install. In order to remove it from the system, you assume that someone has the space for it initially. It's much easier to 'add' un-necessary parts to the system than it is to 'remove' parts when you are stuck with a finite amount of disk space. All that was done (is going to be done) is that the default behavior of 'existance' was changed. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602122008.NAA19822>