Dag-Erling Smorgrav once wrote:
As an outside observer, who does not understand most (all?) of the
differences involved, I must say, this will have to be an unfairly
"uphill" explanation. Because, using the style exemplified by PHK today,
the newconfig people could say something like:
> Then explain to us why newbus is wrong
* newbus is too far in the future and too dynamic (as opposed to
PHK's statement, the (new)config is too old and too static -- no
details)
> and why the 4.4BSD scheme is right.
* newconfig(8) (as opposed to PHK's ``config(8)'')
"We want the FreeBSD to keep the stability and ... it has today".
I'm not arguing with PHK here (nor anyone else), I'm just saying the
brevity is not always a virtue... And for me, who reads -current mostly
to keep the grip on the FreeBSD's directions and currents (hey!), this
brief responses are NOT informative at all. Should they be? I'm not
sure, but usually people taking a stand try to make themselves clear to
all/most of the audience...
Another mailing came through today was a lot more informative, though...
Perhaps, the newbus vs. newconfig discussion can be summarized to both
sides' satisfaction offline and then presented to the rest of the world?
Or, the core team may just say: "Because we said so" (which I think was
already done once) and stop discussing this...
Respectfully,
-mi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [email protected]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
