Subject: Re: Please Revert newlock2
To: Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Nathan J. Williams <email@example.com>
Date: 02/17/2007 18:25:16
Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Based on a lot of experience with this sort of change, it's my opinion
> that you'll get to a stable newlock faster that way than by dropping
> the changes into current and trying to fix them there.
Based on my experience introducing the SA code in the first place -
much like the newlock2 code, avaliable on a public branch for quite
some time - I disagree. Getting it on the head is the only practical
way to get testing coverage on all of the architectures and in
different runtime environmnents. Your approach, in a volunteer,
distributed project like this one, would result in code such as SA or
newlock2 never being introduced.
Fundamentally, -current being broken is something you should expect
and be willing to roll with. If you would like the bugs shaken out
first, then please wait for a release.