Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:03:36 -0500 From: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version Message-ID: <20030304130336.E70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> In-Reply-To: <3E64E740.9D1DC8B3@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 09:49:52AM -0800 References: <20030305004730.A13129@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <3E64CCAB.4C70108F@mindspring.com> <20030304112249.B70629@espresso.bsdmike.org> <3E64E740.9D1DC8B3@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > Mike Barcroft wrote: > > Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > > > Tim Robbins wrote: > > > > Is there a compelling reason why I shouldn't remove netns? That is, does > > > > it serve a purpose now that it could not serve if it was moved to the > > > > Attic? > > > > > > Might as well move /sys/i386/conf/GENERIC to the attic while > > > you are at it. It can serve it's purpose from there, too. > > > > This comment is not helpful. > > Then let me politically correct it. This is much more useful, since you document your assertions which turn out to be incorrect (see below). > I am cynical about the ability of any code to serve the same purpose > from the Attic which it serves in the main source tree. > > What of the rest of my comment, which you removed? I'll > rephrase that, too: > > > Is there a compelling reason for removing this working code to > the Attic? Yes, the compelling reason is that it is broken and no one has stepped forward to fix it. Tim is trying to ascertain whether there are infact real users of this. Real users would either have big patchsets or very old versions of FreeBSD. > I am cynical that any purpose is served by making this change; > my cynicism leads me to believe that the intention of it is to > make it easier for someone to hack up other code which uses > related API's, without having to hack up the netns code as > well. The LINT option for Xerox NS protocols has been commented out since at least 1996. It's very unlikely there are actual FreeBSD users of said protocol. > In other words, it is being done to avoid maintenance, so that > code changes may be hurried into the source tree. No, Tim's goal is to clean up the tree and remove unused code, or find maintainers for broken code that indeed has users. [other comments based on false assertions removed.] > Practically, and historically, it seems that there are a lot > of instances, recently, of code being diked out, not because > it is not currently working, but because someone wished to > avoid maintaining it in the face of some sweeping change or > new idea they want to push into the project. I think most people just don't want to have to maintain code that no one uses. The only way we can figure out if anyone's using the code is to ask. Best regards, Mike Barcroft To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030304130336.E70629>