From owner-freebsd-net Fri Jul 3 01:29:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA12424 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:29:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA12418 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:29:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07117; Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:28:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Luigi Rizzo cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: how about including dummynet in 2.2.7 ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 03 Jul 1998 07:28:54 +0200." <199807030528.HAA13533@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 01:28:38 -0700 Message-ID: <7114.899454518@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > So how about including it in the 2.2.7 distribution ? The patches > I have apply cleanly to 2.2.6, and i can make them work on stable > with relative ease. New features are generally discouraged in the -stable branch, but of course all things are also relative. The biggest reason that new features are discouraged is because they tend to perturb the system in ways that make it very hard to ascertain whether it's still "stable" anymore. If your proposed changes have a very low impact on the rest of the networking subsystem, low enough that you feel very confident about the stability of the resulting system, let's talk some more about it. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message