Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:34:09 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> To: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: bmah@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem Message-ID: <200203072134.g27LY9C68710@bmah.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200203072124.g27LOAI62193@aslan.scsiguy.com> References: <200203072124.g27LOAI62193@aslan.scsiguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If memory serves me right, "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote: > > > >: > >:You came to the conclusion that only *your decision* on what was > >:an appropriate proceedure was the one that mattered. That's not > >:the way this project works. You can't act unilaterally. When people > >:ask you to hold off (and they even asked politely!) so discussion > >:can take place, that is not the time to commit. > > > > I did no such thing. > > Let me quote you from below: > > > So, you see, I didn't "just commit it out of nowhere". I waited > > what I believed to be a reasonable period of time. > > So your oppinion on what was "a reasonable period of time" was the > only one that mattered. Q.E.D. > > > I came to the conclusion because not a > > single goddamn person bothered to read the patch and instead > > the only argument I got was "wait for John" and John's only > > argument is "I don't like the idea of optimizing this routine > > right now" as if he would be the only one responsible for > > dealing with the consequences. > > Actually, John's reaction to the patch is a secondary issue. He wasn't even able to read the lists when this thing blew up. He could > have fallen over backward with love for your changes and you still > would have strewn cuss words all over our lists. > > [More talk about the irrelevant contents of the patch and > "40 hours of work being thrown away" paranoia.] > > > I am angry because you and a number of others are not willing to take > > the work at face value and instead insist on making ridiculous extremist > > assumption into it and then using that opinion to justify not allowing > > the patch to go in. > > How many times do I have to say this? The patch is not the issue. Most > likely it will be incorperated into the tree shortly. <Yawn> > > I'm sorry Matt, but even if these changes are gold lined, it doesn't > change the fact that you acted unilaterally in a manner that is not > conducive to team work. That it. That's really it. > > Now do you want me to go chew out John too. Okay. John isn't being > super professional either. The fact that you started this doesn't change > that. You both have done things that you shouldn't have. Now instead > of trying to convince us that you are completely without reproach, why > not move forward in some constructive manner? Aren't you out of breath > yet? Aren't your fingers tired of typing the same old worn out argument, > "My code excuses my behavior!" again and again? > > >:One week of discussion will not prevent the code from being tested. > > > > Coming on THREE weeks now. Three weeks of my time wasted arguing > > with people who don't even bother to take the time to understand what > > I am trying to accomplish... > > This is your choice Matt. You may not realize it, but you are in control > of how long this wears on. > > > Gee, lets see... why don't YOU ask JOHN how long he intends to wait > > before he allows this sort of optimization to be made? Eh? Please. > > Hey John. Can you comment on whatever issues you have with the content > of these changes? If the API is not compatible with what you are doing, > please explain why and how those conflicts might be resolved. Assuming > that these issues can be addressed and the optimization can be disabled > via a configuration option, what further reasons are there to not allow > this change to go into the tree? > > >:> That is not how I work and I strongly oppose that kind of methodology. > >: > >:I think you've made that clear already. The question is whether you > >:are willing to compromise so you can be part of a team or not. That > >:means, for all of us, that we will not necessarily be able to work in > >:the way we would personally want, all of the time. That's what happens > >:in a group environment. That's life. > > > > This is not about being part of a team. > > I've played "hide and seek" with people that feel this way. > "1, 2, 3 Seems like a reasonable amount of time to me... Ha Ha found > you!" > > > You don't have to be forced into using someone else's methodology to > > be part of a team. > > No, you have to accept the team's methodology in areas that affect the > team. As we say in the States, "your personal liberties end where they > infrindge on mine." This is no different. The CVS repository is not > yours to commit to any way you like. The team has a methodology for > that and as soon as that methodology is broken, we fall into situations > just like this one. > > > This IS about team work, but you are barking up the wrong tree if you > > think I'm the one who's not being a team player here. > > I know you believe this. Just as you believed you were reasonable in > committing that code when you were asked not to. Just as you continue > to insist that the content of your patch is the issue here. I can't > convince you otherwise, but perhaps I can convince you to drop your > self righteousness for a bit so we can move on? > > > I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE CODE COULD NOT BE CHANGED. Hello? Are > > you even listening to what I am saying? > > Actually? No. This isn't about the code, so your comments about it > have absolutely no sway with me. You should save your breath for arguments > that are actually relevent to this discussion. > > > Say what? Who said anything about me not wanting to discuss API changes > ? > > That's all I've been TRYING to do for the last three fucking weeks! > > I don't know about others, but my ears start to shut down when the person > on the other side of the conversation is swearing and yelling their ideas > at me. > > > Are you discussing API changes? No, you are basically just bashing me. > > Umm. Did I ever claim to be the one wanting to discuss API changes? No. > I just want you to focus on having a rational discussion instead of jumping > around like a squirl that's had its tail run over. Is that bashing you? > Only if you say so. I'll be happy to "bash" other people that don't > understand the consequences of their actions on the health of the project. > I've had similar arguments with phk, obrien, wpaul, and even Jordan. Don't > feel special because I'm harping on you this week. > > >: > >:Did I say anything about source files? This is about discussion prior > >:to commit. Nothing more. > > > > So far there has been no discussion. Not a single person, most > > especially john, has attempted to initiate any constructive discussion > > about the API. > > John has no excuse. Neither do you. > > > You obviously didn't go back far enough. These are the facts: > > > > Matt: I'm having a go at fixing critical_enter (Matt discusses > > what he would like to do). > > Bruce: Say, I did something very similar to that. > > Matt: Really? Why didn't you commit it? Could I have a copy > > of what you did? > > Bruce: I hacked a bunch of the issues and it is mixed in with > > other things. Here's a diff of my sys tree. > > Matt: Wow! Great stuff. > > (Matt goes off into a corner and does his stuff, using > > BDE's code). > > Matt: Ok guys, I think I have something that works, here try > > this. > > (two days pass, a few people respond positively) > > Matt: Ok, I am going to commit this. > > Others: wait a week for John. > > Matt: huh? I don't think this interferes with anything john is > > doing. > > Others: wait a week for John. > > Other than BDE sanctioning your change (also irrelevant), you've just > verified that you acted even though others, politely, asked you to > wait. Thanks! > > > And it went forward from there. My ucred changes were already on hold, > > and now I was faced with waiting a week for a John. Well, after all > > of that I finally got tired of waiting. I said, very clearly, that > > (A) I intended to commit it. That (B) I had no problem discussing > > issues with the (unresponsive apparently on vacation) John after the > > commit > > In otherwords. You acted unilaterally. You seem to be making my > arguments for me. Again. Thanks! > > > Now who is being unreasonable? Why do you believe that it is absolutely > > necessary that I be prevented from committing the work? > > I have never said any such thing. Go re-read my email if that is the only > way to prove it to you. I said that it should only be committed after > discussion. Does this mean "don't ever commit that worthless pile of code > you posted"? You keep on trying to make it sound that way, but that's > simply not the case. > > > If someone asked me to wait a day, or even two, it would not be > > a problem. But if someone asks me to sit on my heals for a week, or > > two, or THREE, without any direct justification, then, yes, I consider > > it to be an inappropriate request. > > So you acted unilaterlly. Perhaps I should count the number of instances > of the word 'I' in your messages. 'I' is not a teamwork word. 8-) > > I wrote a fully preemtive RTOS on a Z80 before JHB was even born > I wrote these kick as patches that enhance pre-emption performance. > I committed to the tree even though others asked me not to because > I knew I was right and I knew I had waited a reasonable amount of > time. > > The first two don't excuse the last. > > > I will repeat: This is a damn good patch. I want to see it go in. > > Then do the right things so it will. > > -- > Justin > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203072134.g27LY9C68710>