From owner-freebsd-mobile Sun Mar 28 2: 3:47 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from netrinsics.com (unknown [210.74.173.221]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491D114C0C for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 02:03:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robinson@netrinsics.com) Received: (from robinson@localhost) by netrinsics.com (8.9.2/8.8.7) id SAA26481; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:04:02 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from robinson) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:04:02 +0800 (CST) From: Michael Robinson Message-Id: <199903281004.SAA26481@netrinsics.com> To: freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG, kuriyama@sky.rim.or.jp Subject: Re: Which LAN PCCARD for FreeBSD (no PAO!) In-Reply-To: <36FDF5A7.417600CC@sky.rim.or.jp> Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Jun Kuriyama writes: >We should re-hack PAO code to separate by functionallity. And let's >post -mobile and -current for reviewing. I think that would be an excellent idea. Break up PAO into self-contained diffs against the 3.1 tree, based on single units of functionality. This would have three positive effects: 1. It would be easier for FreeBSD core team members to evaluate the quality of the changes, and apply the acceptable ones to the tree. This method would result in the greatest amount of PAO being integrated in the shortest amount of time. 2. It would be easier for volunteers to find small, easy-to-handle projects to work on to bring the PAO code up to higher quality. This would result in more people working on more features. 3. People who only needed specific features from PAO could install only the parts they needed, which would make it easier to handle parallel tracking of PAO and -STABLE. -Michael Robinson To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message