On 27/07/06, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about a new configure macro to label implementations as > experimental/unstable?
But surely anything that isn't "experimental" should be included in the default list? So anything not in that list, is automatically experimental. > The warning could be fairly dire, indicating that code may not compile, link, > run, behave as expected and may cause your system to implode. I'd say that if the code is that bad, we shouldn't be distributing it at all. Yes - I know the theory - that shipping sub-standard code will encourage people to submit improvements and patches. I also know that this simply doesn't work in practise. We just get bombarded with questions about this module that everyone assumes we know (and care) about, until somebody cracks and re-works things properly. I don't personally believe that's a very profitable approach. Not least because it's often me that cracks first :-) Anyway, I've had my rant, and don't intend to argue this point any more. You all know my feelings, but I seem to be in the minority (yet again:-)) Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
