On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:09:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The problem isn't the patches itself. Don't belive to Alfred, I'm not > > claiming to put any patch into the CVS. I'm just asking some design > > issues, to know what's the proper direction to take so this work can > > someday become part of the Hurd. > > Welp, ask away.
I think the bottom line is: Are the Hurd developers interested in any new Mach design changes/feature additions? Neal and Marcus don't seem to (concentrating on Hurd/L4 instead), so this leaves Thomas and Roland apparently. Sergio proposed/asked some of those: "Multipage requests for GNU Mach 1,3" http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2004-12/msg00242.html "New behaviour for reading from a memory object." http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2005-07/msg00278.html and did not get feedback from either of you. This is not a bad thing per se if you guys don't feel like working on Mach anymore, but it would probably be good to communicate this clearly to people either way, as some still seem to be interested in hacking on it. What should happen to patches pertaining to other parts than Mach itself (the Hurd, glibc) due to these design changes is another matter. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
