Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:07:47 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> To: "Chuck Robey" <chuckr@picnic.mat.net> Cc: <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/pci pcisupport.c Message-ID: <000101be9ce5$6561baa0$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905122138370.401-100000@picnic.mat.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have to comment on this, it's too outrageous. Several times in the > past, folks have written in and asked, if they wrote some particular > piece of software, would it get committed. They said that it was a > large undertaking, and that they wouldn't undertake it, unless there was > general agreement beforehand about it. There is a big difference between a general agreement that some feature or other is a "good thing" and a blank check of approval for code changes. These seem to get confused all the time. One example of this problem, in the opposite direction of the one you mentioned, is the old, "If you think that's such a good idea, why don't you code it and submit it?" This is equally unhelpful. If it's a bad idea, why should anyone code it? If it's a code idea, why does it matter who codes it, as long as it's coded well? DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000101be9ce5$6561baa0$021d85d1>