It's same as with Reiser4
Posted Nov 14, 2008 23:25 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata
In reply to: It's same as with Reiser4
Parent article: The sad story of the em28xx driver
If I follow your analogy, you're saying that it would be bad to include Markus's new driver alongside the existing one because Markus would eventually abandon it in favor of working on yet another new driver.
Is it actually a requirement for driver inclusion that future support be lined up? That seems to be the opposite of the open source process. Rather, a developer puts code into the mainline so that the whole rest of the world can maintain it. In particular, users of the code — people with a material interest in it — maintain it. If the code doesn't get maintained and becomes unusable, we just drop it back out.
The article mentions the confusion factor of having two similar drivers. I can think of another drawback: division of development and test effort. All of these are weak.
Mauro doesn't explain his reason for not wanting both. He just says:
Both upstream and the 4 duplicated drivers have similar functionality. Also,
the upstream driver is actively maintained. So, there's no sense on accepting
those duplicated drivers.
That's non sequitur to me.
to post comments)