Darren J Moffat writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > Rather than repeating past blunders, I'd like to see us do better. In > > any event, you can always replicate these past mistakes on your own by > > typing "v1.1" explicitly in your code, and bumping the number on each > > push. I don't think that's the right strategy at all, and I'd > > strongly argue against it being applied as any sort of guideline or > > standard for others to follow, but if it floats your boat, and you > > can't wait for a better answer, go for it. > > Providing the code isn't in ON!
Actually, if someone were really wedded to the idea for his own driver, I would probably have the same mildly disparaging comments about it (because I still think it's the wrong path), but as long as he keeps his hobbies to himself and doesn't insist on others doing likewise, I don't think I care. Weirdness in one or a few drivers is just par for the course. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
