Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:35:56 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: phk@freebsd.org (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: terry@lambert.org, alk@Think.COM, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/mtree BSD.usr.dist Message-ID: <199606240535.WAA27042@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <5288.835493006@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Jun 22, 96 06:23:26 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry, > > (Nice bit of rethoric.) Thanks. > Terry, if you want to work with people instead of against them, then > you have to bend everynow and then. I am willing to bend occasionally, though not *every* now and then: I will bend *some* now and thens. > I have looked over every bit of code you have ever sent my way. I > will continue to do so. > > The one and most overwhelming reason I have not committed much of it yet > is that so far I have completely failed to apply the patches and getting > the resulting system to behave itself. This was a source tree synchronization issue resulting from failure of CVS to operate correctly. The first failure for the FS code was because you did not back your checked out tree to the indicated date. The second was because the patches were submitted as deltas against the first patches, on the assumption that this was not an "all or nothing" proposition -- a bad call on my part. Subsequent patches have applied cleanly, but not met your sperability criteria (ask Jeffrey Hsu, who was able to cleanly apply them on at least three occasions). In addition, the other patches I have submitted that *did* meet your seperability and documentation criteria (the fsck root inode count fix, the NFS server locking support patches, etc.) have *not* been integrated. I understand that integration of the Lite2 code takes priority (if also too much time), and these patches affect areas of the system which don't have much apparent patronage in the core team. This in no way detracts from the percieved difficulty of getting patches accepted. I am *not* the only person in this boat. It takes nearly Herculean effort to get some types of patches accepted; several groups have had to go so far as to offer their own boot disks and patch kits (most notably Hosokawa-san's PCCARD code). Even with Nate's patronage, there is still the need for building seperate-from-snap boot disks to address a number of issues, because the patches are not *truly* integrated. The PC98 integration *is* a hopeful sign, I'm sure, to many of us. I *am* willing to try to "work within the system" -- as I have been trying for the year and a half since leaving Novell... still, even if I must shoulder the majority of blame, if there needs to be an assignment of blame, I refuse to shoulder it all. > If you could submit patches of that quality and clarity, I'm sure you > would see a lot of your changes go back into FreeBSD. I'm sure I could also halve or quarter my production, providing rationale for things which are, to me at least, bloody obvious. I'm already willing to spend a large amount of time parceling up my work, but I have only so much time I'm willing to spend; please do not bankrupt me. Can we compromise? Can you define how small is palletable so that I can preinsure palletability before sending something, and if, when I send something, it is not sufficient self explanatory (with a minimum of accompanying text), tell me *that* so I can correct it? Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606240535.WAA27042>