From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 17:38:10 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id RAA10956 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:38:10 -0800 Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA10951 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 17:38:09 -0800 Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA00517; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:38:05 -0500 From: Charles Henrich Message-Id: <199511140138.UAA00517@crh.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns To: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 20:38:04 -0500 (EST) Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199511140136.SAA01103@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Nov 13, 95 06:36:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1117 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > 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/