-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Jason Thorpe wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2006, at 5:06 PM, Jim Wise wrote:
>
>> Yes, that sort of goes without saying.
>>
>> I've stated pretty clearly why I think this is the case,
>
> Then you should have not removed the code, no matter what you think of it.
> Instead, you should have discussed it, at least, and if it was controversial,
> gotten the nod from Core first.

Honestly, I didn't see this as particularly controversial -- this code 
is clearly not the direction the project is going in, since it 
structurally cannot match the features which have been added to 
`build.sh release' and `build.sh syspkgs' in the intervening four years, 
and it is clearly unmaintained (the same work, for instance, hasn't been 
carried over to other targets in share/mk, or to other directories under 
src -- src/x11, to pick one example, is fully understood by syspkg and 
by build.sh, but is not grokked by this code at all).

I'm actually kind of shocked to discover that anyone imagined that this 
was live code, much less that anyone is claiming that this one day would 
have been finished to a usable state (come to think of it, _is_ anyone 
actually claiming that?).

I guess I'd be more ready to believe that this removal was 
`controversial' if there were _any_ live proposal to do anything with 
this (currently incomplete and unmaintained) `tag information'.  There 
isn't, though, so it seems to me that removing this is much more like 
the routine dead code elimination we _all_ do when we encounter 
something that isn't turned on, isn't finished, and wouldn't work if 
someone were to try to use it.  A quick browse through src/changes will, 
I'm sure, confirm that this is normal practice.

- -- 
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFEGjZHhfG1+Pg8jmsRAm1BAJ9dHVcNu9Fyb6kYHtw0fhUBrfNUiwCeLp4i
04/8JE8Q2+xRfrR2ORW4rZg=
=Oj35
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----