On Thursday, 9 December 1999 at 9:10:33 +0100, Soren Schmidt wrote:
> It seems Blaz Zupan wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
>>> I fully agree that these things are neccessary and good. I just think
>>> we need avoid jumping the gun on removing the old code, when some
>>> people still need it to boot their machines.
>>
>> Actually I completely disagree. When you leave in old code in the tree,
>> people who can't use the new code for whatever reason (technical problems,
>> laziness, etc.) will use the old code. Forever. And people tend to not
>> report such things - if it works with the old code, why bother? If you
>> take something away from them, they will at least notice that it's broken
>> and report it to the author.
>>
>>> From my own experience, I lost the WaveLAN driver with the newbus stuff.
>> If it was somehow still working (for example through some compatibility
>> code for the old bus system), I'd not have done anything about it. But as
>> it was broken, I sat down and fixed it. Although my time is as limited as
>> everybody else's and it took me a whole day, I leared a lot through this.
>
> Wonderfully put, this is the _exact_ problem we are facing here.
That's certainly not the problem I see. Once the functionality is
available in the new driver, I have absolutely no objections.
We're getting off track again: the real issue is that you shouldn't
completely replace old drivers with new, better written, less buggy
drivers which have significantly less than the full functionality of
the old driver.
Greg
--
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
