tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Lua in NetBSD

On Sat Oct 24 2009 at 12:36:54 -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 05:28:58PM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > 
> > My objection was that the only thing written with Lua in NetBSD was
> > emails.  Writing longer emails will not alter my stance.
> > 
> > I don't see what's so wrong with writing code for your dozens of use
> > cases Lua is perfectly suited for and giving people the chance to
> > actually evaluate your proposal.
> I don't see why you propose this as the only option.  Let me be 100% clear
> about why we (Coyote Point) will certainly not do this: we have limited
> development resources which are already more than fully allocated.  We are
> able to shift our development priorities only when we can make a compelling
> case that doing so will somehow reduce our costs or increase our revenues.
> [snip]
> I think we (and Marc, and Jason, and Lua's maintainers, and
> many of the others who have come out in favor of Lua integration in this
> discussion) have a pretty good record of getting most of the major things
> done that we say we'll do.  I think we are all saying pretty much the
> same thing: "Tell us the work won't be thrown away, and we'll get it done,
> because we all have valuable uses for it".  I doubt any of us are willing
> to trade that point of view for your "do the work before getting any kind
> of approval of what you intend to do": again, the risk of wasting our time
> is too high.

You are saying "if this ends up sucking totally, we'll integrate it anyway
because we got a promise and now it's in our corporate plan".  I prefer
the model where integration to NetBSD is based on technical merit.

Also, please don't think core/everyone following these lists is stupid.
If the result observably rocks, I don't see why any critical majority
would object integration.

> However, I have to say that my impression is that the majority of the
> developers who've spoken up in this discussion see it more like our
> way (which is to say, not "agree completely" but "are tending in that
> direction") than your way.  Do you disagree?

I am stating *my* opinion.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index