From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 20 19:31:21 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B91D16A46D; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:31:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C0913C4EB; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:31:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 9E8171A4D8E; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:29:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:29:31 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-ID: <20070820192931.GK87451@elvis.mu.org> References: <200708182118.37998.tijl@ulyssis.org> <20070818204223.D1234@fledge.watson.org> <46C7A9A4.5090404@samsco.org> <20070819095302.D66918@fledge.watson.org> <222044094-1187603330-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1638751523-@bxe027.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> <46C9AE64.50705@samsco.org> <20070820182905.GH87451@elvis.mu.org> <46C9E2A7.8030202@samsco.org> <1639123F05401A4F2A1C3F33@ganymede.hub.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1639123F05401A4F2A1C3F33@ganymede.hub.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: wine-freebsd@hub.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Xin LI , cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_thr.c syscalls.master src/sys/sys X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:31:21 -0000 * The Hermit Hacker [070820 11:59] wrote: > > Just for the record here, I think that Scott did bring up a very valid point in > what he had said ... Kris did mention 'PC-BSD including it even if FreeBSD > didn't' (or words to that effect), and Scott's response was only meant (at > least the way I had read it) to bring us back into focus that we are better to > come up with a BSD solution vs risking further forking of code ... > > Please note that in all of this dicussion, it is only been recent that someone > mentioned a 'kld solution', which I think would be cool ... > > I do think that the 'mud slinging' at Scott was quite out of place ... There was no mud being slung, threatening someone with a fork because they choose to go with a kld until the developers can accept a new call (that exists in just about every other OS)... whatever dude. I suggested the kld by the way. -Alfred