Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:55:38 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> To: Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community Message-ID: <20080111155538.GA88354@owl.midgard.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111161756.0ad5956f.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> References: <47873B06.9010603@riscworks.net> <200801111058.m0BAwAMG001075@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <47876B39.3040703@FreeBSD.org> <20080111145128.abb76a0a.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> <20080111150057.GA88016@owl.midgard.homeip.net> <20080111161756.0ad5956f.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 04:17:56PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote: > Thus Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 > 16:00:57 +0100: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote: > > > Thus Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 > > > 14:12:25 +0100: > > > > > > > Timo Schoeler wrote: > > > > > > > > >> It will even go into the CVS tree (though probably not > > > > >> into GENERIC) if the source is clean, style(9)-compliant > > > > >> and well maintained. > > > > > > > > > > It should do with *one* exception: Every other, more important > > > > > problem (e.g. getting ZFS to v9) is *solved*. If this is the > > > > > case, import the USB christmas tree device driver and introduce > > > > > dev.xmastree.lamps.blink as sysctl, absolutely no problem. > > > > > > > > > >> But even if it doesn't go into the > > > > >> tree, that's not a big deal. For example, for several > > > > >> years I maintained some patches that improved syscons > > > > >> (kern/15436). They didn't go into CVS, but they worked > > > > >> fine for me and a few others. > > > > > > > > > > But I bet you would be fine with it in the tree as well as some > > > > > others, if not all others? If so, why didn't it get into the > > > > > tree? Maybe because some lower-priority USB christmas device > > > > > driver was imported instead? > > > > > > > > > > This is the crucial point I wanted to show: *Priorities*. > > > > > > > > You are making the incorrect assumption that one developer > > > > working on e.g. your /dev/uxmas in any way effects the > > > > development of other "more important" parts of the tree. > > > > > > No, I didn't. I said that the work is done ineffectively as he's > > > doing underprioritized stuff. Working on higher prioritized stuff > > > would be more efficient, and would help the project even more. > > > > But he is probably working on high priority stuff. High priority > > according to *his* priorities that is, not your priorities. > > I don't have priorities on what he's working on, but the > project/community has. The project/community is an abstract entity that does not have any opinions or priorities of its own. Indviduals within the project/community have priorities - often different priorities. > And as he's part of this community -- he chose > being part of it -- he should do what is best for the community. Not > what is 2nd or 3rd best. Period. Sure - as long as I get to decide what is best for the community. :-) Otherwise I will just note that I am not a great fan of communism. > > > > Given the assumption that the developer is able to do both, the Xmas > > > tree as well as importing ZFS v9 into the tree. > > > > > > (I don't see the point that when somebody is really *capable* of > > > doing both things, why should (s)he do the 'lower priority' thing. > > > If you are at the olympic stadium and you're the best sprinter, you > > > wouldn't join the marathon...!) > > > > Because he thinks the 'lower priority' thing is more fun, and doesn't > > care at all about the stuff that you happen to think should be high > > priority. > > There's no *me* or *I*, there's a project/community. Should I spell > it? :) It wouldn't help to spell it out - it would still be just as wrong. > > > > > In almost all cases it does > > > > not. If they were not working on that "lower priority" code, they > > > > would not be working on your "more important" code anyway, unless > > > > they already wanted to do that. > > > > > > That's just a lack of responsibility, morals, and enthusiasm. So, > > > why code at all? > > > > > > > Kris > > > > > > Timo -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080111155538.GA88354>