Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:00:57 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community Message-ID: <20080111150057.GA88016@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111145128.abb76a0a.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> References: <47873B06.9010603@riscworks.net> <200801111058.m0BAwAMG001075@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <47876B39.3040703@FreeBSD.org> <20080111145128.abb76a0a.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote: > Thus Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 > 14:12:25 +0100: > > > Timo Schoeler wrote: > > > > >> It will even go into the CVS tree (though probably not > > >> into GENERIC) if the source is clean, style(9)-compliant > > >> and well maintained. > > > > > > It should do with *one* exception: Every other, more important > > > problem (e.g. getting ZFS to v9) is *solved*. If this is the case, > > > import the USB christmas tree device driver and introduce > > > dev.xmastree.lamps.blink as sysctl, absolutely no problem. > > > > > >> But even if it doesn't go into the > > >> tree, that's not a big deal. For example, for several > > >> years I maintained some patches that improved syscons > > >> (kern/15436). They didn't go into CVS, but they worked > > >> fine for me and a few others. > > > > > > But I bet you would be fine with it in the tree as well as some > > > others, if not all others? If so, why didn't it get into the tree? > > > Maybe because some lower-priority USB christmas device driver was > > > imported instead? > > > > > > This is the crucial point I wanted to show: *Priorities*. > > > > You are making the incorrect assumption that one developer working on > > e.g. your /dev/uxmas in any way effects the development of other > > "more important" parts of the tree. > > No, I didn't. I said that the work is done ineffectively as he's doing > underprioritized stuff. Working on higher prioritized stuff would be > more efficient, and would help the project even more. But he is probably working on high priority stuff. High priority according to *his* priorities that is, not your priorities. > > Given the assumption that the developer is able to do both, the Xmas > tree as well as importing ZFS v9 into the tree. > > (I don't see the point that when somebody is really *capable* of doing > both things, why should (s)he do the 'lower priority' thing. If you > are at the olympic stadium and you're the best sprinter, you wouldn't > join the marathon...!) Because he thinks the 'lower priority' thing is more fun, and doesn't care at all about the stuff that you happen to think should be high priority. > > > In almost all cases it does > > not. If they were not working on that "lower priority" code, they > > would not be working on your "more important" code anyway, unless > > they already wanted to do that. > > That's just a lack of responsibility, morals, and enthusiasm. So, why > code at all? > > > Kris > > Timo -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080111150057.GA88016>