From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Nov 9 20:38: 5 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 5AA5837B401; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:38:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5542043E42; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 20:38:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAA4c2pk069054; Sat, 9 Nov 2002 21:38:02 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 21:37:56 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20021109.213756.23012360.imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bluetooth From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20021109.001225.94555950.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 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 In message: <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org> julian@FreeBSD.ORG (Julian Elischer) writes: : : > I'd go one step farther. I'd say that it would be insane to have more : > than one bluetooth stack for FreeBSD. I'd go farther and say that it : > would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for *BSD. : > Bluetooth is too big and specailized for there to be much benefit in : > competing stacks. : : The Netgraph stack is more an idea than code at this stage.. are you : suggesting that we do not commit our working stack because they might : sometime write a stack? If the code is so horrible, why commit it at all? FreeBSD isn't a dumping ground for any old code that people happen to come up with. You can't argue that we should commit it to FreeBSD, because it is about ready and at the same time argue that the code sucks, so you don't have to do any work. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it is just about ready for prime time and you need to properly integrate it into the tree, or it is an experimental hack that has no business being in the tree. It can't be both. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't commit this code because NetBSD might someday come up with a better stack. I'm saying that we need to be open to sharing with NetBSD/OpenBSD. I'm saying that you need to be open to integrating it completely into the tree. I'm saying that we should make efforts to allow our NetBSD bretheren to pick up the stack. Didn't you read the rest of my post? FreeBSD has plenty of examples where code was committed prematurely and then it rotted to worthlessness. Sometimes this was because there were multiple similar things in the tree, other times the original developer fell off the face of the earth. In any event, it has caused us problems. BTW, looking at the stack it appears to me that this code is getting close to being real enough for inclusion in the tree. Don't take my comments above as thinking that code in question is horrible. I'm just pointing out how contradictory your arguments are, which is why people are giving you a hard time about how you want to integrate the code. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message