Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 21:37:56 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: julian@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bluetooth Message-ID: <20021109.213756.23012360.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20021109.001225.94555950.imp@bsdimp.com> <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20021110032023.AAC7D37B401@hub.freebsd.org>
julian@FreeBSD.ORG (Julian Elischer) writes:
:
: > I'd go one step farther. I'd say that it would be insane to have more
: > than one bluetooth stack for FreeBSD. I'd go farther and say that it
: > would be insane to have more than one bluetooth stack for *BSD.
: > Bluetooth is too big and specailized for there to be much benefit in
: > competing stacks.
:
: The Netgraph stack is more an idea than code at this stage.. are you
: suggesting that we do not commit our working stack because they might
: sometime write a stack?
If the code is so horrible, why commit it at all? FreeBSD isn't a
dumping ground for any old code that people happen to come up with.
You can't argue that we should commit it to FreeBSD, because it is
about ready and at the same time argue that the code sucks, so you
don't have to do any work. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either it is just about ready for prime time and you need to properly
integrate it into the tree, or it is an experimental hack that has no
business being in the tree. It can't be both.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't commit this code because NetBSD
might someday come up with a better stack. I'm saying that we need to
be open to sharing with NetBSD/OpenBSD. I'm saying that you need to
be open to integrating it completely into the tree. I'm saying that
we should make efforts to allow our NetBSD bretheren to pick up the
stack.
Didn't you read the rest of my post? FreeBSD has plenty of examples
where code was committed prematurely and then it rotted to
worthlessness. Sometimes this was because there were multiple similar
things in the tree, other times the original developer fell off the
face of the earth. In any event, it has caused us problems.
BTW, looking at the stack it appears to me that this code is getting
close to being real enough for inclusion in the tree. Don't take my
comments above as thinking that code in question is horrible. I'm
just pointing out how contradictory your arguments are, which is why
people are giving you a hard time about how you want to integrate the
code.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021109.213756.23012360.imp>