Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:38:04 -0500 (EST) From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140138.UAA00517@crh.cl.msu.edu> In-Reply-To: <199511140136.SAA01103@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 13, 95 06:36:15 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Heck, I'll bet they could re-write the entire VM system from scratch in
> 3-4 months. :)
I'll be they can do it in 1.5!
> I would never commit a patch that haven't been reviewed or at least
> tested on my own machines. Just because something 'looks like it
> solves' a problem doesn't mean it's a correct solution. It may simply
> hide the problem or move it to somewhere else. There is *nothing* worse
> than a poor fix. This is NOT to say that Matt's solution was poor, but
> until it is reviewed and tested it *shouldn't* go into the tree.
Ack, I concur as well. What I meant was do a quick review instead of a massive
review for 2.2. Part of the problem I think is that Matt doesnt have a track
record here. I know (of) Matt from my Amiga days, where he has done incredible
amounts of work, including porting Unix to the damn thing. He also had (is?)
been running it on his heavily loaded ISP company at the time if I'm not
mistaken, lending it some credibility.
-Crh
Charles Henrich Michigan State University henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu
http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140138.UAA00517>