Hi, On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksej Saushev <a...@inbox.ru> wrote: > (...) >> Lua is a tool, not an end in itself. I think that you are formulating >> a chicken-and-egg problem: we need the basic support for then having >> applications, and we need applications for then having basic support. > > The problem with your approach is that such "chicken-and-egg" problems > are to be solved _at_once_ rather than laying "eggs" everywhere around > and have everyone else wait till at least one "chicken" appears.
No. I'm talking about put just one egg, just a device driver. >> Sure, we do not *need* a script language interpreter embedded in the >> kernel, as we do not need a specific file system. But I do not get why >> we should not. There is current development of applications being done >> right now. Also, there is a few interesting works that used Lunatik in >> Linux [1, 2] that could be done more easily now in NetBSD just because >> we have the right environment for that. That is not about needing, but >> it is about supporting a certain kind of agile development, >> prototyping, customization and experimentation in the NetBSD kernel >> (how could it be hurtful?). I think that is why we *should* (not need) >> have this on the tree. IMHO. > > I have to point out that "interesting work" is commonly used as a sort of > euphemism to refer to highly experimental work with unclear future. Yes. But I'm talking about "interesting *user* work". I'm not claiming that they should be in the kernel. I'm just saying that, IMHO, we should incorporate a small device driver that facilitates this kind of development (outside the tree). > You tell that there's "interesting work" using Lua in Linux. > Was it accepted in any experimental Linux distribution like Fedora? > What was the outcome of discussion among linux kernel developers? > Currently there's no indication that it was accepted anywhere. Really don't know. I'm not a member of these communities neither I'm claiming to incorporate such works here. However, I think that there was a discussion about PacketScript on OpenWRT, but I don't know how it evolved. > I doubt very much that we want such unreliable development practices > like "agile" ones in the kernel, and experimentation work can be done > easier and better in a branch or a personal repository. I agree with you in this point: experimental work should be done aside from the tree. > And last. The appeal to "why not" is defective. NetBSD is not your > personal playground, there exist other people who have to deal with > the inadvertent mess you can leave after you. That's why you ought > to present solid arguments that justify why other people should tolerate > your experimentations. I guess you misunderstood that. I'm not arguing that we should do it just because there is no contrary argument. I sincerely asked 'why not?' trying to understand the contrary argumentation. Also, I'm not saying that you should tolerate my experimentation. Far away from that. I haven't committed anything nor tried to impose nothing. I'm just trying to make a point of view and understand yours. When I talked about experimentation, I was trying to say that providing support for that kind of experimentation for users sounds a good idea for me and I don't see how it is prejudicial. Which doesn't mean that I'm proposing that my personal experimentation should be in tree. Regards, -- Lourival Vieira Neto
