Date: 05 Sep 1996 13:05:40 +0100 From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <57d901xj3f.fsf@elsevier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Nate Williams's message of Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:05:28 -0600 (MDT) References: <5412.841891920@time.cdrom.com> <199609050356.UAA08131@phaeton.artisoft.com> <199609050405.WAA04202@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> writes: > 'Good Stuff' - Something which provably works better than the status quo > which in the end doesn't require more work out of 'me'. > > 'Wasted Time' - Spending time arguing and discussing the merits of > something which 'would' be better than the status quo if > it were implemented, but the process of making it better > will require significant amount of work out of 'me'. > Hmm, I must admit that this thread has a certain amusement value. I suspect that hackers is the more appropriate forum but there *should* be a forum where hackers can just throw ideas around (even if they never get implemented, there's a learning curve in just discussing things that may lead to future development). Some people seem to feel they *have* to get involved in discussions and then complain that they never amount to anything. Hey guys, if you think this thread is wasting your time *STOP READING IT*, and let others discuss what they feel is important to them. Just maybe, after ideas have been thrown around enough someone will actually implement a prototype but at the moment this is all pointless since we're not discussing technical issues at all, the dialog goes something like Q: I think the Make system is broken because it's lacking XYZ. A: Fine, develop a prototype and we'll look at it. Q: Ok, but what's the spec going to be for the new design. A: Well, it has to be better than what we have now. Which is not a recipe for moving forward. I suggest that anyone who doesn't want to actually contribute to the design process just stop reading the thread and let Terry and Richard and anyone else interested talk about the design issues of a prototype and then perhaps we'll move forward. I think there's a problem on both sides, Richard's viewpoint is that there should be a concensus that the new prototype will be adopted. On the core side there's the viewpoint that they've enough to do without worrying about the problem and making commitments to adopt something that's not even down on paper yet. I suspect rather strongly that core would happily adopt a new mechanism if a group of people came up with a working prototype even if it required a fair amount of upheaveal (we've been through such major changes before with the VM system and the switch to 4.4 as obvious examples). When there's a clear advantage to the switch it's been made. The problem is that you're trying to win over the "powers that be" too early in the process. If the "powers that be" who are too busy just stop reading this thread and let those who are really interested discuss it to death then we may make some progress. Even if no code ever gets implemented at least some people's blood pressure will drop :-) -- Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor) Elsevier Science TIS online journal project. Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57d901xj3f.fsf>