From owner-freebsd-current  Tue May 20 23:13:04 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA21351
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 20 May 1997 23:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (ala-ca12-10.ix.netcom.com [199.35.209.202])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA21340
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 20 May 1997 23:13:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.9) id XAA06751; Tue, 20 May 1997 23:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 23:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199705210612.XAA06751@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: jdp@polstra.com, rob@ideal.net.au, current@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <18183.864192172@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: IPDIVERT broken?
From: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

 * It seems that if we are to survive as a project in the long-term,
 * developers are going to have to take greater responsibility for their
 * actions and be willing to follow *all* the way through on any changes
 * made, repairing the results of any interface changes and essentially
 * just being willing to make things work again on a tree-wide basis if
 * they break.

I think this sentence is too long, but I agree 100%.

Satoshi