From owner-freebsd-current Tue Feb 13 09:46:49 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA25778 for current-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:46:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA25773 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA23317; Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:42:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199602131742.KAA23317@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Anybody using netns? To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:42:13 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <9602131551.AA30532@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Feb 13, 96 10:51:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > > The mold grew on the shelf where the bread was located. > > > The bread has not changed. > > Actually, no. When we brought the bread back from the store, it > already had a bit of mold on it. Because we didn't really need the > bread anyway (it was thrown in as a free gift from the store's > departing manager), this mold was allowed to grow until it consumed > the entire loaf before someone noticed it. > > > It is the responsibility of those ho caused the shelf to to change to > > make a place for the bread. > > Or decide that it's worthless and throw it out, which is what I'm > about to do. You know and I know that the code would be functional today if the interfaces on which it relies had not been changed out from under it. This is what I call a partial integration of the new code, and I don't see how a partial integration which loses functionality can be considered to be acceptable. Whether or not that functionality should be optional, and whether or not it should be maintained is another topic, seperate from any intent to remove it utterly. To return to the land of allegory, the new code is an experiment and throwing away the old code that was not of interest to the integrator of the new code is tantamount to fudging data on the experiment to make it prove something other than what it proves when not fudged. Anyway, this is my last posting on the topic; you're clearly committed to causing the code to be lost, and thee's really nothing I can do apart from the attempts I've already made to convince people that this is a bad idea. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.