Re: Re: On the _need_ to vacuum...

* geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz <geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz> [010428 21:44] wrote:
> I am rather staggered by a developer considering it necessary to
> attempt to cooerce the core development team into including a patch.

I'm assuming you refer to the updated page at:
http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/vacfix/

> If the work that Alfred has done is as effective as he claims, then
> there must be a *REALLY* good reason why it isn't being included.

The work is not mine. It was contracted by my previous employer
that I still maintain a close working relationship with.

> I don't want to start any form of war....
> But as a user I'd be interested to know why such a patch would appear
> to be unacceptable.

I never said anyone accused the patch was "unacceptable" I just
said it was never integrated nor brought up to date with the 7.1
branch.

I'll update the vacfix page to explain better.

I also need to update it to explain that the vacfix is not a
cure-all, certain degenerate conditions cause it to perform as
bad if not worse than a traditional vacuum.

--
-Alfred Perlstein - [alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
Represent yourself, show up at BABUG http://www.babug.org/