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

[Taylor R Campbell <riastradh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

   Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 18:12:29 -0300
   From: Lourival Vieira Neto <lourival.neto%gmail.com@localhost>

   On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Taylor R Campbell 
<riastradh%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
   > [*] You could do this in a branch, you could do this in a private Git
   > repository, or you could even just do this in a local CVS checkout
   > (since kernel Lua requires no invasive changes, right?).

   Yes, but how do we do device driver development? We are branching the
   tree for each non-intrusive and disabled-by-default device driver? If
   we have developed a device driver for an uncommon device, we have to
   put it in a branch? (Please, note I'm friendly asking that).

Device drivers usually have trivially demonstrable useful functions
related to physical devices that one encounters on the market.
Example:  I wrote uatp(4) because the trackpad in my MacBook didn't
work very well.  I also developed uatp(4) in a local Git branch
because at first it was an experiment which I expected to throw away.

   > In the two links you gave, I found precisely five lines of Lua code,
   > buried in the paper, and those five lines seemed to exist only for the
   > purpose of measuring how much overhead Lua adds to the existing pNFS
   > code or something.

   I'm just showing examples of how it could be useful for user
   applications. I understand that you do not agree with that. But I'm
   not arguing that we have to add these applications into the tree. I'm
   arguing that we could benefit users with such a tool.

I don't disagree that Lua could be useful for user applications, and
I'm not asking you to propose applications to add to the tree.  All
I'm asking for is examples of applications at all, which I couldn't
find in either of the links you gave.  Where is the Lua code?