Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:46:32 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <20040418054632.GA27224@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org> <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 06:00:59AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >I don't understand why every time we have this kind of discussion >again and again about providing multiple solutions to one problem. >People can have different opinions about diversity being good or bad >(which is good -- diversity is good :), but I would be much happier >to hear specific arguments not generic ones. In this particular >case the answer seems pretty obvious. One disadvantage of diversity is increased maintenance costs. Three sets of bridging code are going to need roughly three times as much maintenance effort as one set. This is an ongoing cost that is borne by the Project as a whole. Even it the code comes with an iron-clad promise that the initial committer will continue to maintain it, circumstances change and that person won't be able to maintain the code for ever. I don't know enough about the pros and cons to make an informed decision in this particular case, but there need to be definite benefits to justify the increased ongoing effort. Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040418054632.GA27224>