Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:22:07 +0100 From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606211122.MAA16736@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <199606200002.CAA04323@vector.jhs.no_domain> References: <199606191153.MAA07207@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> <199606200002.CAA04323@vector.jhs.no_domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> ""Julian" == "Julian H Stacey" <jhs@FreeBSD.org> writes: "Julian> To current@FreeBSD.org Reference: >> From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> >> >> Unfortunately, it's a fact of life in FreeBSD these days that >> certain people in core consider FreeBSD to be theirs and don't see >> any need to discuss issues with the project as a whole or even >> other core members because it just gets in their way. "Julian> It's time we had FreeBSD Annual Election Of Officials. "Julian> An increasingly autocratic attitude is noticeable, as is a "Julian> tendency to weigh proposals more by personalities & less by "Julian> technicalities :-( Umm, this is going a bit over the top. Things are generally working fine as they are. The gripe I have is that occasionally some members of the core team just go ahead and do things their way without consulting anyone because they know that the issue is likely to be contentious and don't want the discussion to prevent things happening. The crux is that the issues that are contentious are the very one's that should be widely discussed and if the outcome is that nothing happens then that's probably better than having something in FreeBSD that a lot of people consider bad. The tcl issue is a perfect example, Poul and Jordan knew it was going to be contentious and took the position of just getting it in and dealing with the flack rather than discussing the issue and risk nothing happening. It's this attitude that annoys me and thus I made the comment I did above. Nothing happening would have been a better outcome if that's what a discussion would have resulted in since what we currently have is an abomination that *no-one* has anything good to say about. Can we please back out the tcl crap and bmake it properly. Everyone seems to be in favour of this and as many people have said the workload involved in bkmaking something properly, using a vendor branch, is not that great. Moving from gcc1 to gcc2, which was basically bmaking gcc2 from scratch only took me a day when it was done originally and that involved solving the basic issues of how gcc was going to sit in our tree and dealing with all the issues of getting our tree gcc2 ready. There were several updates in quick succession around that time and they were done in hours. It really isn't a big deal. The reason no-one can be bothered to keep these tools up to date is that there's no burning reason to do so and more interesting things tend to take priority. That and the fact that a lot of them are rather broken in the way they were imported, we probably need to sweep through the cvs tree and get third party code back on proper vendor branches.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606211122.MAA16736>