From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 15:01:05 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D5F16A417 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:01:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB2F13C447 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:01:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-253-25-183.bredband.comhem.se ([83.253.25.183]:52200 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JDLNX-0004F0-4e for freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:01:03 +0100 Received: (qmail 36087 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2008 16:00:57 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2008 16:00:57 +0100 Received: (qmail 88088 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Jan 2008 16:00:57 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:00:57 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Timo Schoeler Message-ID: <20080111150057.GA88016@owl.midgard.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Timo Schoeler , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, Kris Kennaway 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080111145128.abb76a0a.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-Originating-IP: 83.253.25.183 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1JDLNX-0004F0-4e. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1JDLNX-0004F0-4e 4484f74e08e5cae970d322c2a6e3c9b6 Cc: Kris Kennaway , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:01:05 -0000 On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote: > Thus Kris Kennaway 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 -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se