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

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Oct 19, 2013, at 12:26 AM, Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost> wrote:

> Am 19.10.13 09:03, schrieb Alan Barrett:
>> On Sat, 19 Oct 2013, Marc Balmer wrote:
>>> The inclusion and use of Lua in base, for use in userland and the
>>> kernel, [...] has, last but not least, core's blessing.
>> 
>> Would you please either present some evidence for that claim, or stop
>> making the claim.
> 
> I am not making a claim.  And what is this, a trial, that you ask me to
> present evidence?  You were not a core team member at the time, so I
> really can't blame you that you don't remember it.  But I blame you for
> making this up as if it was "sweeping kernel change" or so.  It's a tiny
> device driver that uses source code that is already in the tree since
> about three years.  I will eventually dig out the email exchange, but
> that will have to wait, I am at a trade show right now.

Well, I've been on core a lot longer (over a decade now) and I don't 
remember approving in-kernel Lua either.  I checked my mail archives.
The relevant mail is from around October 24th, 2010.
  
The only kernel references are for things like exec_script support
and to "make sure userland Lua does not conflict with the kernel Lua 
from his [Lourival Neto] GSoC project."  That strongly implies that you
were only asking for userland lua support and that's what core granted
permission for.

Looking through past mail, it saddens me to note that the bozohttpd 
changes took nearly 4 years to get into the tree.