DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2004-01
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Trolling on the freebsd- lists

From: Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:03:36 -0500

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:

On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:12:22AM +0100, Miguel Mendez wrote:

Also note that discussing FreeBSD's merits in this list is off-topic. The last time DragonFly was discussed in the freebsd-hackers@ mailing list, Kip and other people got flamed by Poul-Henning and friends.

...which is precisely the problem of the FreeBSD community. Instead of discourage forking, it should encourage it and then be supported under the same umbrella as if it was the same project with no intrusive centralization.

Functional groups, with many highly qualified engineers, ideally should let things be a plurality without problems or find ways where as many ideas can be expressed without exclusion. Obviously, folks like phk and others prefer to put down other potentially interesting work to preserve their sense of CVS territory and artificially boost their own status instead, pissing off the very people they need for the project to be successful.

I would like to point out that branching is permitted and encouraged under Linux, which although has been around for less time is currently more advanced in many (not all) areas than any of the BSD's. Unfortunately, there are also examples of concensus/politics taking precedence in Linux also such as NGPT vs NPT thread model, in my opinion.

I would think that since CVS was designed with this in mind (branches, alternate threads of parallel development) that it would be a natural outcome. Since work on branches will never directly affect each other, I don't see why the main branch could not hold the 'important' code and yet keep experimental branches around to try new ideas. As far as I know, this sort of thing only happens normally for the Linux kernel (which paradoxically, did not use version management in any form until the last few years): none of the BSD's do this (yet). Am I mistaken in this general observation? Why has it happened this way for Linux/BSD? Note: having a current branch (the head) and stable branches for releases is not what I am talking about. For example there where alternate, competing VM designs in Linux in the 2.4 series (different branches) as well as the Alan Cox (ac) kernels.

I keep wanting to exit this thread, but I feel this needs to be said repeatedly somehow.


Is it just a problem with FreeBSD? Could there be concerns that developer time/effort will become too divided and if so are they valid?

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]