Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:55:24 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG>, Tim Robbins <tjr@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of netns - politically correct version Message-ID: <20030305014800.E18288@znfgre.tberna.bet> In-Reply-To: <3E65C538.A4F7A73A@mindspring.com> References: <3E6539B5.2F5D31B@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030305084442.037e9fa0@gid.co.uk> <3E65BB24.3E37D90D@mindspring.com> <20030305011926.T18288@znfgre.tberna.bet> <3E65C538.A4F7A73A@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > The code is still useful as a simple implementation, much more
> > > easily understood by the student than the current TCP/IP stack,
> > > for certain.
> >
> > And it will still be available. It'll just be available in the Attic. The
> > fact that it will get more broken in the future because it's not being
> > maintained in the tree is not terribly significant since it's already
> > broken now.
>
> Why don't we let me sumbit patches, apply the things, and *then*
> dike the code out, if that's your reasoning?
We should. If no one else wants to do it, I'll be glad to. I can raise my
kernel commit percentage a whole order of magnitude! (up to 0.0001%)
> > > On the other hand, there's no compelling reason to dike it out,
> >
> > There is at least one, namely that it will make kernel code updates easier
> > to do, and easier to test.
>
> And here people were telling me I was wrong for cynically assuming
> that the reason people diked out so much code in the past year was
> because they wanted to perform kernel code updates, without having
> to maintain all the code they would be touching with those updates...
I think that's definitely part of the motivation, I just think you're
wrong to be cynical about it. :) There is no reason not to cut broken,
unused code when it will always be available in CVS if someone comes along
to make it useful again.
> > > if it can be made to work. I would argue that ISA support is
> > > more or less just as obsolete, as is 486 support, as is the F00F
> > > bug workaround, as is ... a lot of code that's still there.
> >
> > Your argument here is non sequitur because we still have large bases of
> > users and developers that have and use this hardware. I retired a box with
> > an original P90 f00f bug cpu not that long ago, for example. netns has
> > neither freebsd users or developers, and hasn't for years.
>
> And I have two XNS terminalservers, and there are people on this
> list with Apollo equipment. Your point was again?
My point is that we do not, and can not have any user base for the code as
it exists, and we could not have for years because it doesn't work. The
fact that there may be N users of netns in the universe doesn't affect the
brokeness of our code as it has existed in recent history.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030305014800.E18288>