From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 13:12:29 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FC516A41A for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:12:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195C713C4CC; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:12:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47876B39.3040703@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:12:25 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Timo Schoeler References: <47873B06.9010603@riscworks.net> <200801111058.m0BAwAMG001075@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> In-Reply-To: <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: chat@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:12:29 -0000 Timo Schoeler wrote: >> It will even go into the CVS tree (though probably not >> into GENERIC) if the source is clean, style(9)-compliant >> and well maintained. > > It should do with *one* exception: Every other, more important problem > (e.g. getting ZFS to v9) is *solved*. If this is the case, import the > USB christmas tree device driver and introduce dev.xmastree.lamps.blink > as sysctl, absolutely no problem. > >> But even if it doesn't go into the >> tree, that's not a big deal. For example, for several >> years I maintained some patches that improved syscons >> (kern/15436). They didn't go into CVS, but they worked >> fine for me and a few others. > > But I bet you would be fine with it in the tree as well as some others, > if not all others? If so, why didn't it get into the tree? Maybe > because some lower-priority USB christmas device driver was imported > instead? > > This is the crucial point I wanted to show: *Priorities*. You are making the incorrect assumption that one developer working on e.g. your /dev/uxmas in any way effects the development of other "more important" parts of the tree. In almost all cases it does not. If they were not working on that "lower priority" code, they would not be working on your "more important" code anyway, unless they already wanted to do that. Kris