Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 09:37:55 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> To: Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libXO-ification - Why - and is it a symptom of deeper issues? Message-ID: <CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro> References: <0650CA79-5711-44BF-AC3F-0C5C5B6E5BD9@rdsor.ro> <CAJ-Vmokfo_BGWji9TrgQ40oRxqht9-2iEZVon7aQxR_93Ufxyg@mail.gmail.com> <702A1341-FB0C-41FA-AB95-F84858A7B3A4@rdsor.ro>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 November 2015 at 09:10, Dan Partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> wrote: > Meaning, is that simple to push things in head , if somone does the work, even with with no proper review of the problem at hand , and the proposed solutions ? Nope and yup. The juniper folk had a solution to a problem multiple people had requested work on, and their proposal was by far the furthest along code and use wise. It's all fine and good making technical decisions based on drawings and handwaving and philosophizing, but at some point someone has to do the code. Juniper's libxo was the furthest along in implementation and production. -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmoniBAmWTf9MkCCMYhRbPLc=0%2Bz5kRSijXfqX9VZvm8jDg>