From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 7 23:58:07 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF2DA2B; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 23:58:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [IPv6:2607:fc50:1000:8200::42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C2272F1E; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 23:58:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.129] (d66-183-220-167.bchsia.telus.net [66.183.220.167] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r97Nw3hc025594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:58:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\)) Subject: Re: rcs is gone? From: Lyndon Nerenberg In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:58:02 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E4D92A9-EB10-4469-AA1F-E70D71405732@orthanc.ca> References: <29D748F4-5E38-4587-BC7F-0141234C2F62@orthanc.ca> <6CEFF9B8-A62A-4616-A0FF-BDDDE1027A7E@FreeBSD.org> <132C8A43-E822-49C3-A1EA-493A40449AD4@orthanc.ca> <525347DD.5090702@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:58:07 -0000 On 2013-10-07, at 4:49 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > I've asked on IRC to figure out when this was first proposed. Adrian, something to keep in mind is that the majority of your code's = users will never use your preferred communication media. So when you = propose to remove a feature, absence of push-back means nothing, other = than the lack of a communications channel with your 'customers'. We get this a lot with feature manipulation in nmh, and have learned to = tread carefully as a result. This is also why the IETF defines work as being that which takes place = on the mailing lists. Slow and dumb (in the media-rich sense), but = everyone knows what's going on. In that light, if there is a rational argument for pulling RCS out of = the base, propose it here on the -current list and let's all discuss it. --lyndon