On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:27:04 +0900 
 Ken Nakata <kenn@synap.ne.jp> wrote:

 > > More importantly, I think LBL's excuse is rather lame,
 > 
 > Then why did NetBSD reject the patch because LBL rejected it with the
 > "lame" "execuse"? (provided the fact that NetBSD rejected it because
 > of LBL's rejection of the patch is true; if not, I'd like to hear the
 > real reason)

You can infer that I think that NetBSD's excuse was rather lame, too :-)

(OH NO!  QUICK!  GRAB THE WORMS! :-)

IMO, "minimal diffs from vendor code" is OK when reasonable, but if it
means going without a nice feature, etc., you'll never hear me advocate
that philosophy.

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 650 940 5942