Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:49:23 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, hosokawa@itc.keio.ac.jp (HOSOKAWA Tatsumi), mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: usr.sbin/pccard/pccardd change for "cardio" and "cardmem" Message-ID: <199907211649.KAA26565@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199907210058.SAA89778@harmony.village.org> References: <199907201852.MAA20790@mt.sri.com> <199907201518.JAA19388@mt.sri.com> <199907201331.WAA22907@afs.ntc.mita.keio.ac.jp> <199907201754.LAA87429@harmony.village.org> <199907210058.SAA89778@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : Many of the 'fixes' in PAO were *easily* fixed with just a bit of time > : with the 'bad' cards. Making the already difficult to understand code > : bigger and more complex with fixes for broken existing code is just > : silly. > > That may be true. However, the code lifetime for pccardd is a few > months in -current at best, so I don't see the harm. I'm less convinced of you than that. > : Now, I'm not saying that this is the case, but in the past this was very > : often the case, so allow me a bit of conservatism in not allowing every > : new feature to fix 'broken code'. :) > > I can't control how you think or feel Nate. :-) I don't see the point > in being so conservative that we continue to lack functionality that I > need for other projects. When did asking for 'correct' code become conservatism? I didn't realize that we were becoming more Linux-like recently, where as long as it added functionality, we'd just add it to the tree, whether or not it was correct and stable. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907211649.KAA26565>