FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community
timo.schoeler at riscworks.net
Fri Jan 11 05:51:25 PST 2008
Thus Kris Kennaway <kris at FreeBSD.org> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008
> 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.
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...!)
> 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?
More information about the freebsd-current