Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:12:25 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Timo Schoeler <timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD's problems as seen by the BSDForen.de community Message-ID: <47876B39.3040703@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net> References: <47873B06.9010603@riscworks.net> <200801111058.m0BAwAMG001075@lurza.secnetix.de> <20080111140144.59498431.timo.schoeler@riscworks.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47876B39.3040703>