From owner-freebsd-current Mon Feb 12 12:09:52 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA24198 for current-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:09:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA24064 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:09:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19822; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:08:10 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:08:10 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199602122008.NAA19822@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), wollman@lcs.mit.edu, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anybody using netns? In-Reply-To: <199602121954.MAA20651@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199602121945.MAA19759@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199602121954.MAA20651@phaeton.artisoft.com> Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > > > 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