On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:32:08PM -0800, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote: > I don't understand your position. Let me explain why. > > You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to > impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one." > > If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no > matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the > experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it?
I don't really follow. It's not impossible. It's just not trivial. Keeping the old one has been the answer for the past twenty-odd years. But it can't be fixed and sooner or later someone's going to find a critical problem with it. The reason it came up this week is that someone found and posted a couple noncritical problems in one of the other forks of it. The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't really need one. > [top-posting deleted] -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
