From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 06:11:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3956416A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:11:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19D043D46 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:11:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 2660E530A; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 374B8530E; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id D6B5C33CA7; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:23 +0100 (CET) To: Stephen McKay References: <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home> From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:11:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home> (Stephen McKay's message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:48:56 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Doing it right X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:11:33 -0000 Stephen McKay writes: > I think it is a legitimate (and helpful) thing for developers to question > the technical merits of changes even if they aren't personally contributi= ng > much code. It can't simply be the case that whoever has the time to comm= it > the most code changes wins. Changes must be in the long term interests of > the project. Hence questioning code changes can be as much a contribution > as writing new code if it avoids a future problem. Sorry, but you get zero points for criticizing this decision after the fact when it had already been discussed to death for literally months before it was implemented, and Garance spent uncounted hours writing and testing the transition scripts and documentation. No points either for criticizing a decision which you clearly did not bother to learn enough about to even discover that it did not affect you. Now, if your message had been something like the following, this thread might have turned out very differently: "Are you planning something similar for i386? In that case, I think we should place more emphasis on backward compatibility..." DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no