From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 2 12:46:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02431 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:46:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from rgate2.ricochet.net (rgate2.ricochet.net [204.179.143.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02412 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:45:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from enkhyl@scient.com) Received: from mg137-090.ricochet.net (mg137-090.ricochet.net [204.179.137.90]) by rgate2.ricochet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA18980; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:44:42 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:43:55 -0800 (PST) From: Christopher Nielsen X-Sender: enkhyl@ender.sf.scient.com Reply-To: enkhyl@hayseed.net To: Garrett Wollman cc: Chuck Robey , John Hay , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6 in -current In-Reply-To: <199811011929.OAA05742@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Garrett Wollman wrote: > I frankly don't care that much which IPv6 implementation is chosen. > My concerns are the following: > > 2) that we don't screw any of the existing developers > > 1) that we make whatever necessary fundamental advances we can in the > network stack before taking on additional deadweight If both IPv6 contenders have commit privs, why can't these things be done in parallel, as long as proper regression testing is done? (if I'm being outright stupid, please whack me over the head with a big stick) -- Christopher Nielsen Scient: The Art and Science of Electronic Business cnielsen@scient.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message