From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: netlink tester program
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:38:34 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Message-ID: <20030602.203834.115933659.davem@redhat.com>
References: <3EDC0047.7030007@pacbell.net>
	<20030602.190240.74724523.davem@redhat.com>
	<3EDC173B.80909@pacbell.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rddunlap@osdl.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com
Return-path: <netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
To: david-b@pacbell.net
In-Reply-To: <3EDC173B.80909@pacbell.net>
Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

   From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
   Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 20:34:19 -0700

   > See, a document is NOT the spec, the code is the spec.
   
   That's hardly the only development model.
   
It's the one that works for _me_ and Alexey and myself, and we're the
ones doing all the work.

When someone doing the work desires the docs and desires to
WRITE it, it will appear.
   
You can expect exactly nothing more in our development model.
If you require me to write the docs, you misunderstand how the
system works :)

   You clipped out the text where I pointed out that bugs can
   be in specs as well as code.  They can be fixed there, too.
   
Very true.  So when Randy writes the more detailed netlink/rtnetlink
docs, we'll be happy :-)
   
There is even an official IETF RFC written by Jamal, Alexey, and
others documenting netlink btw :-))))))))))))

Did anybody notice this?