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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > > > 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. Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602122008.NAA19822>