Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:48:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Message-ID: <199905122048.QAA72725@misha.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpn1za3z9y.fsf@localhost.ping.uio.no> from Dag-Erling Smorgrav at "May 12, 1999 08:42:49 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smorgrav once wrote: As an outside observer, who does not understand most (all?) of the differences involved, I must say, this will have to be an unfairly "uphill" explanation. Because, using the style exemplified by PHK today, the newconfig people could say something like: > Then explain to us why newbus is wrong * newbus is too far in the future and too dynamic (as opposed to PHK's statement, the (new)config is too old and too static -- no details) > and why the 4.4BSD scheme is right. * newconfig(8) (as opposed to PHK's ``config(8)'') "We want the FreeBSD to keep the stability and ... it has today". I'm not arguing with PHK here (nor anyone else), I'm just saying the brevity is not always a virtue... And for me, who reads -current mostly to keep the grip on the FreeBSD's directions and currents (hey!), this brief responses are NOT informative at all. Should they be? I'm not sure, but usually people taking a stand try to make themselves clear to all/most of the audience... Another mailing came through today was a lot more informative, though... Perhaps, the newbus vs. newconfig discussion can be summarized to both sides' satisfaction offline and then presented to the rest of the world? Or, the core team may just say: "Because we said so" (which I think was already done once) and stop discussing this... Respectfully, -mi 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?199905122048.QAA72725>