On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, James Carlson wrote: > 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.
Right, and that's what the RTI nits allows for at this time. In the future we may come up with something better (and I do understand why people want something that ties the driver to a particular version of the source... not a particular build of the software). As of now, nearly anything goes...except %I% being used in output of any sort :) Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025. 650-786-0461
