Policy for removing working code (Was: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon)

[Vadim Goncharov]

Hi Doug Barton! 

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:37:07 -0700; Doug Barton wrote about 'Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon':

> On 09/07/2010 02:31 PM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
>> 07.09.10 @ 18:53 Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>
>>> on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following:
>>>>> Just to clarify things a little for those following it:
>>>>> the original I4B code was removed
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1)
>>>>> for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant
>>>>> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was
>>>>> removed.
>>>>
>>>> But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock
>>>> is not
>>>> practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was
>>> removed"
>>> [emphasis mine] do you not understand?
>>
>> No, component removed was (1), I've underlined.
>>
>>> The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology.
>>
>> For a practical reasons, "it works but slow" is better than
>> "doesn't work at all (due to absence of code in the src tree)".
>
> I think you are misunderstanding the situation. It wasn't a case of, "It 
> works but it's slow." The situation was that in order to take 
> performance of the network stack as a whole up to the next level it was 
> necessary to remove the Giant lock.

But definitely this IS that situation: "network stack with I4B/Giant
works but it's slow" - you see, "It" = "stack w/ I4B".

> Because the original I4B code didn't 
> work without the Giant lock, and because no one stepped forward to fix 
> that, the code had to be removed.

No. The code needn't removal, the stack should be modified to be fast without
I4B and slow for those who wish to compile it with I4B anf Giant. Then slowness
is their problem, not of the Project.

>>> BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc.
>>>
>>> So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-)
>>
>> You do not understand the problem. It is not in notices & volunteers,
>
> In this case it was 100% about the latter. In addition to the fact that 
> without volunteers there is no project, period; the fact that no one 
> steps forward to maintain/improve a given piece of code is generally a 

No, I've just described to vwe@ that there were no proper notices so wherefrom
volunteers will appear?..

> pretty good indicator that it's not widely used.

If code isn't widely used that is still not the reason to axe it out. If it
is almost not used - then may be. Also, how widely it is used may be easily
underestimated due to lack of announcements and surveys.

-- 
WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181       mailto:vadim_nuclight at mail.ru
[Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight]