From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Nov 7 17:14: 6 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF6137B401; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:14:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net (harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E4C43E4A; Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:14:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0030.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.30] helo=mindspring.com) by harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 189xic-0005qS-00; Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:13:55 -0800 Message-ID: <3DCB0EF9.617D66B5@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 17:10:17 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Leffler Cc: Julian Elischer , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Long, Scott" , re@FreeBSD.ORG, Maksim Yevmenkin , Murray Stokely Subject: Re: Bluetooth code References: <038501c286b2$5efb1890$52557f42@errno.com> <3DCAFCA8.DF1FF47A@mindspring.com> <03fc01c286c1$59e2a170$52557f42@errno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Sam Leffler wrote: > > The counterargument is "port NetGraph to NetBSD, OpenBSD, and BSDI". > > > > The issue that's being raised here is "Who gets to lead the parade?"; > > the answer "Be a follower, not a leader" isn't very satisfying to > > anyone. > > The issue is should we commit something to the source tree that may be of > limited use to people. If the software provides functionality to a > significant group of people then I'm open to its inclusion regardless of > whether it's present in any other system. However one must not lose sight > that adding code to the source tree has a cost, independent of whether it is > "hooked up to the build". If the code doesn't have someone to maintain it > as the system changes then it can become a boat anchor. Well, the Bluetooth code has an active developer, it has some applications that are available for it already, and it's severable from the main source tree in a way that boat anchors aren't. There's some small argument that's valid, that if ports are written to use a Netgraph bluetooth stack, they won't be that portable to other BSD's that don't have Netgraph. This is a valid argument, but it appears that NetBSD doesn't even have real Bluetooth at this, point, so it's kind of moot. > Code rot is unhealthy for maintaining quality software. Code rot > happens quickly when noone uses it. I disagree. There is no such thing as code rot. There are only jerks who changes working interfaces, and fail to maintain the code that uses them. I have an example list a mile long on that one, too. Institutionalizing the acceptability of "code rot" is institutionalizing the acceptability of being a jerk. It's a completely seperate issue from whether or not code falls into disuse. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message