Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 17:46:18 -0400 From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> To: "John Baldwin" <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf f Message-ID: <f34ca13c0710161446l50deee86k3e6d6605e35a79d6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16/10/2007, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 12:33:11 pm Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Constantine asked for review several times on -current. He got some > > reviews several times for commits to perforce. He incorporated > > suggestions from those reviews, or explained why it is like it is and > > why he can not switch (with no replies with suggestions how to solve > > the problems he sees with the suggestions). Now you come and ask why > > nobody pointed out some flaws before (without telling us which > > technical flaws you talk about). > > At least from my point of view this is not quite accurate as pretty much all > my feedback to the p4 commits was ignored with basically "Well, I don't like > doing it that way". Specifically, with regards to creating dynamic sysctl > trees, Constantine feels that sysctl_add_oid(9) is a hack rather than > recognizing that this is a feature of FreeBSD's sysctl system despite > repeated e-mails on the subject. Dear John, I have specifically addressed this concern of yours just several weeks ago. Please see the following message, which you've never replied to: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/p4-projects/2007-September/021121.html I've used the documented parts of the FreeBSD's sysctl interface to preserve 100% userland compatibility with OpenBSD. I cannot possibly see why you would have a problem with such an approach other than for the fact that OpenBSD is not a proprietary system with wealthy sponsors. Cheers, Constantine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f34ca13c0710161446l50deee86k3e6d6605e35a79d6>