Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:30:04 +0100 (MET) From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: stesin@elvisti.kiev.ua, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFV: adding phk_malloc to -stable Message-ID: <199603180930.KAA00195@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <n1385035677.5370@Richard Wackerbarth> from "Richard Wackerbarth" at Mar 17, 96 06:19:37 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Until you can demonstrate that NOTHING is (more) broken by doing so,
>
> I VOTE NO!
Following this reasoning, you will not allow any extension whatsoever
to the kernel or system libs or other critical parts of the system,
because you often cannot demonstrate what you ask.
> Stable is supposed to be just that -- stable. You cannot go breaking things
> that work, even if they work only because of "two wrongs"
\begin{humor}
Very well, this way you don't even allow bug fixes! So let's call it
-immutable (unless something depends on the version being called
-stable!) and let's concentrate on something else!
\end{humor}
A more sensible position would be to ask those who use phkmalloc to
report any brokennes evidenced by the new routine.
Personally, I have been using it for some time (mostly x applications,
mail readers, gcc, ghostscript, nfs server etc.) with no single
application going wrong (at least to my knowledge).
Luigi
====================================================================
Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione
email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa
tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy)
fax: +39-50-568522 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/
====================================================================
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603180930.KAA00195>