Re: Why do we need lua in-tree again? Yet another call for actual evidence, please. (was Re: Moving Lua source codes)

[Lourival Vieira Neto <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost>]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost> 
wrote:
> (...)
>> Lua is a tool, not an end in itself. I think that you are formulating
>> a chicken-and-egg problem: we need the basic support for then having
>> applications, and we need applications for then having basic support.
>
> The problem with your approach is that such "chicken-and-egg" problems
> are to be solved _at_once_ rather than laying "eggs" everywhere around
> and have everyone else wait till at least one "chicken" appears.

No. I'm talking about put just one egg, just a device driver.

>> Sure, we do not *need* a script language interpreter embedded in the
>> kernel, as we do not need a specific file system. But I do not get why
>> we should not. There is current development of applications being done
>> right now. Also, there is a few interesting works that used Lunatik in
>> Linux [1, 2] that could be done more easily now in NetBSD just because
>> we have the right environment for that. That is not about needing, but
>> it is about supporting a certain kind of agile development,
>> prototyping, customization and experimentation in the NetBSD kernel
>> (how could it be hurtful?). I think that is why we *should* (not need)
>> have this on the tree. IMHO.
>
> I have to point out that "interesting work" is commonly used as a sort of
> euphemism to refer to highly experimental work with unclear future.

Yes. But I'm talking about "interesting *user* work". I'm not claiming
that they should be in the kernel. I'm just saying that, IMHO, we
should incorporate a small device driver that facilitates this kind of
development (outside the tree).

> You tell that there's "interesting work" using Lua in Linux.
> Was it accepted in any experimental Linux distribution like Fedora?
> What was the outcome of discussion among linux kernel developers?
> Currently there's no indication that it was accepted anywhere.

Really don't know. I'm not a member of these communities neither I'm
claiming to incorporate such works here. However, I think that there
was a discussion about PacketScript on OpenWRT, but I don't know how
it evolved.

> I doubt very much that we want such unreliable development practices
> like "agile" ones in the kernel, and experimentation work can be done
> easier and better in a branch or a personal repository.

I agree with you in this point: experimental work should be done aside
from the tree.

> And last. The appeal to "why not" is defective. NetBSD is not your
> personal playground, there exist other people who have to deal with
> the inadvertent mess you can leave after you. That's why you ought
> to present solid arguments that justify why other people should tolerate
> your experimentations.

I guess you misunderstood that. I'm not arguing that we should do it
just because there is no contrary argument. I sincerely asked 'why
not?' trying to understand the contrary argumentation. Also, I'm not
saying that you should tolerate my experimentation. Far away from
that. I haven't committed anything nor tried to impose nothing. I'm
just trying to make a  point of view and understand yours. When I
talked about experimentation, I was trying to say that providing
support for that kind of experimentation for users sounds a good idea
for me and I don't see how it is prejudicial. Which doesn't mean that
I'm proposing that my personal experimentation should be in tree.

Regards,
-- 
Lourival Vieira Neto