Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:40:17 +1200 From: Andrew Thompson <andy@fud.org.nz> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: ported NetBSD if_bridge Message-ID: <20040418064017.GB70588@kate.fud.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <20040418054632.GA27224@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404170008410.66312-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <40810F83.2030107@freebsd.org> <20040417060059.A50118@xorpc.icir.org> <20040418054632.GA27224@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 03:46:32PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > 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. > A valid point, but on the other hand both NetBSD and OpenBSD use this code so you could say that maintaining it will be easier. Still, that doesnt help for FreeBSD specific maintenance. Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040418064017.GB70588>