Subject: Re: Please Revert newlock2
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bucky Katz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/20/2007 17:37:30
Jason Thorpe <email@example.com> writes:
> On Feb 20, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Bucky Katz wrote:
>> We're simply asking
>> that you leave the m:n threads for the uniproccesor case as a compile
>> time kernel option.
> ..and the problem is that that request is unreasonable in the sense
> that it would require throwing away a lot of other work that the
> Project as a whole deems extremely valuable.
Even the revert request didn't ask for any work to be thrown away.
The revert request asked for it to be allowed to cook a while
longer. It's hard to see why a branch that's been cooking for years
couldn't cook a few more weeks until it at least built and ran simple
stuff on all the active architectures.
We (well, at least I,) have moved past the revert request and are
trying to find a win/win way around the NetBSD Project's screwup in
not asking the user community about functionality that was being
I have noted that you speak both for core _and_ for "the Project as a