-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thus Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:00:24 +0100:
> Timo Schoeler wrote: > > Thus Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > > > 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? > > You are not listening to what we're telling you about how software > developers work, You don't get the difference between how it was ten years ago and how it is today. This is not my problem. > and you've also overridden the Reply-To: chat in my > previous email, which is inappropriate. I apologize. :) > I'm not going to exchange further emails with you on this topic, and > you've also strongly encouraged me to also delete your future emails > unread. You are a very mature guy with whom discussing on a non-polemic level is a great pleasure. (If you can find sarsasm [0] in this sentence, feel free to keep it. It's a gift.) > Goodbye, > Kris Have a nice day, Timo [0] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHh3hbUY3eBSqOgOMRCkMTAJ0Z+KkNsjsgJmNQGx2SN0FkZDyoMwCgo0vP UlJRlG9QwOWkUa1K+SSnUAM= =7vDY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
