From owner-freebsd-current  Wed May 21 06:36:31 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id GAA10067
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id GAA10062
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 21 May 1997 06:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.5/8.6.9) id XAA26062; Wed, 21 May 1997 23:30:38 +1000
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:30:38 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199705211330.XAA26062@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu, jkh@time.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: IPDIVERT broken?
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@polstra.com, rob@ideal.net.au
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%.

I agree with this out of context quote.  Developers should repair the
results of any interface changes to their code.  Changers shouldn't be
expected to do it all.

Bruce