FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community

Erik Trulsson ertr1013 at student.uu.se
Fri Jan 11 07:01:05 PST 2008


On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> Thus Kris Kennaway <kris at 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.



> 
> 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.



> 
> > 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 at student.uu.se


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list