From owner-cvs-all Sat May 23 08:30:26 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA29838 for cvs-all-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:30:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA29831 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@austin.polstra.com) Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA00989; Sat, 23 May 1998 08:30:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp) Message-Id: <199805231530.IAA00989@austin.polstra.com> To: gibbs@plutotech.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci if_tl.c if_tlreg.h In-Reply-To: <199805220518.XAA17997@pluto.plutotech.com> References: <199805220518.XAA17997@pluto.plutotech.com> Organization: Polstra & Co., Seattle, WA Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 08:30:18 -0700 From: John Polstra Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk In article <199805220518.XAA17997@pluto.plutotech.com>, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > >>> did. If this is really a step forward then I'd suggest that > >>> a whole lot more needs changing if self-consistency is also your > >>> goal (and I think it should be, especially where this kind of > >>> stuff is concerned, since other driver writers will imitate it). > > > >It's a step backwards. We use cvs for version control here. > > But I don't feel that we should enforce this policy decision (has there > been a policy decisions about #ifdef crap???) on third party vendors. It > is one thing to say that all code committed to our tree is passed through > unifdef first, and another to not provide an easy mechanism for identifying > source code version to third party vendors. > > I want this for CAM, and so long as CAM remains an external component, > I'm acting in the same role as a third party vendor that has no interest > in maintaining two different code trees. I have to agree with Justin and company here. There are other developers of code for FreeBSD besides the people who have a FreeBSD.ORG mailing address. We need to make it easy for third party developers to support multiple versions of our kernel. If that means adding a #define or an include file someplace, fine. It rates about a 0.001 on my violation-of-purity scale. The case for this has been made persuasively and repeatedly by many serious developers over the past year or longer. I don't think it enhances our marketability one bit to make life needlessly difficult for third-party developers over trivial things like this. -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message