From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 5 15:01:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA25520 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:01:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA25514 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert@usr05.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA12557; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:01:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd012543; Sun Apr 5 15:01:38 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA27114; Sun, 5 Apr 1998 15:01:34 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199804052201.PAA27114@usr05.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Softupdate for 2.2.6? To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1998 22:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Cc: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it, frank@our.domaintje.com, tcobb@staff.circle.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3370.891777350@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Apr 5, 98 04:55:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > No implication of centralized control over third party patches was > intended. I am simply saying that each task is hard enough to do that > it's highly unlikely that the questioner will see such patches > released. > > > > Q. Will any of the following features ever be in 2.2.x, even as > > > 3rd party patches? > > > > > > A. 1. Soft Updates: No. > > > 2. CAM: No. > > > 3. SMP: No (you didn't ask, but I figured while I was making > > > a list... :-) > > > > since when is anyone in control of third party patches ? > > (i mean except licensing restrictions). If some good soul wants to do > > the backport and provide a patchfile, i don't see any problem with > > that. I understand that you are being realistic and "No" means "I don't > > think we'll ever find someone willing to do the backport" If patches were provided, say for soft updates, would they be integrated, or would thy have to remain "third party"? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message