Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 19:54:04 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUID-Directories patch Message-ID: <199711150254.TAA17745@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000@picnic.mat.net> References: <346CDDE4.5656AEC7@whistle.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971114185945.18833O-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Where does experimental code go? ] > I'm not sure that hackers is the right place for this (current would IMO > be more correct) but I have to say that I feel Julian has a strong point, > current _is_ the place for experimentation. It would be different if the > code that he's bringing in was non-functional, but it isn't. The code isn't non-functional, but it is dys-functional. I think that's the crux of Jordan argument, that it isn't up to the users/developers of -current to flesh out/finish the work. Or even 'macro-debug' it. Hopefully by the time the code is in -current it's 'mostly working', with bugs that can only be found by large-scale testing, and not missing large pieces of necessary functionality. Saying it works 'most of the time, except when you have more than one disk' is like saying the code works on all machines except those machines who run X, which it doesn't work on. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711150254.TAA17745>