Re: [9fans] [GSOC] plan9 which arch code to use?

[Anthony Sorace <a@9srv.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]

sl said:

> The original post (in its way) was asking for advice about
> an amd64 kernel that is not publicly available.

No, it wasn't. There was some confusion over the point that
Plan 9, unlike some other systems, selects the arch based
entirely on the running kernel (no 386 binaries running on
amd64 machines).

> Some people (not knowing the full situation) offered advice
> about publicly available amd64 kernels and were shot down.

Again, that's not what happened. Erik and cinap pointed out
one can use 9atom or 9front; Charles gave instructions for
building the amd64 userland. He then, later, pointed out that
there are things other than just the 64-bit kernels in 9atom
and 9front. It's at that point some folks seem to have felt
compelled to dredge up the old mess of the original amd64
kernel, which was not what Charles was talking about and was
not otherwise at issue here.

I'm not sure who in this conversation you think is "not knowing
the full situation"; I'm fairly confident that all the salient points
on this topic have been discussed on 9fans ad nauseam.

> Everything else follows from that.

From two faulty premises. Got it.

You should re-read the thread. You may think you've been
responding to what people are actually saying, but the
bunker-mentality defensiveness you repeatedly exhibit has
caused you to misinterpret much.

As for how the situation could be improved: well, there's lots of
potential answers to that question. This has nothing to do with
hiring professional project managers or whatever you seem to
think is required for actual coordination, but taking some care
for your upstream sources is a really effective first step common
among open source projects. Try starting there.

Anthony

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]