Am 12/30/11 10:07, schrieb Mark Linimon:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 04:04:31PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
>> There maybe serious reasons having the Linuxulator, i do not know. But
>> if not, why spending rare developer resources on that?
> This is a classical misunderstanding of the FreeBSD development model.
> There is no "staff" standing around waiting for assignments, as with
> a commercial company.  When committers join the project, they usually
> (almost always) already have a long list of things that they want to
> work on.  And then they go work on them.
> Neither the core team, nor the FreeBSD Foundation, "direct" the project
> and its course of development.  Some of the members of each do post
> emails, or stand up in front of conferences, and say "you know, I think
> it would be really neat if someone did xyz."  Sometimes this leads to
> results, sometimes not.
> As for the companies that have their own FreeBSD-derived products,
> often their goals are tightly focused, e.g. "improve the number of
> packets we can pass" or "support our specialized hardware".  Some,
> but not all, of the resultant work makes it back into FreeBSD.  We
> get to say "it would be really neat if ..."; and, in addition, point
> to possible future minimization of merging and duplication of effort
> as a way to save costs long-term.
> But with these exceptions, development is primarily driven from the
> bottom-up (individual committers find something they are interested in
> working on, and then go work on it), and not the top-down as in "real"
> companies.  This is the way the overwhelming majority (90+%?) of the
> work on FreeBSD gets done.
> So, there's no one "assigned" the tasks of closing PRs, nor working on
> coordinating code with the other BSDs, nor working on the Linuxolator,
> nor even supporting high-performance computing.
> It's a cooperative anarchy, not a hierarchy.
> mcl

By no maen is this what I said or intended to say.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to