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.seReceived on Fri Jan 11 2008 - 14:01:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC