From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 5 22:24:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1060) id 4C8711065674; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:24:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:24:02 +0000 From: Craig Rodrigues To: Yar Tikhiy Message-ID: <20080305222402.GA80407@crodrigues.org> References: <200803050825.m258Ppv2016738@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080305122029.GA7027@dg.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080305122029.GA7027@dg.local> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: Craig Rodrigues , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/fsck_ffs main.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:24:02 -0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 03:20:29PM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Your analysis of the problem sounds not quite correct to me. You make some interesting points in your e-mail. I suggest that you summarize the points and post them to arch@ for further review and discussion. There is how nmount() should work in an ideal world, and then there is the existing implentation, which is not exactly clean and perfect. It is important as we clean up the nmount() code in the tree, that we keep things working without introducing too many hacks. The problem with the mount code in FreeBSD is that a fix that appears "correct" in one area, may break things somewhere else, because that area has hacks/workarounds/improper coding/whatever that "just happened to work". So while you may disagree with the aesthetics of some of the mount patches.....I have been trying to slowly migrate things over and clean things up in the various mount binaries and file systems and still try to keep things working the way they have before. I've not been perfect and have made some mistakes along the way, but I try to clean things up. My complaints with your mode of operation have been: - you started committing in an area in which you don't have a lot of track record in working in - you started breaking things in configurations you were unable/unwilling/no time to fix or investigate - you post long e-mails, or commit messages complaining about how you don't like how the mount code is structured or works, but your posts tend to look like rants I agree with a lot of what you have posted, but you need to be more constructive, and post your suggestions to arch@ to get proper review and discussion going. I know you mean well, but you need to slow down and direct your focus more constructively....otherwise it looks like you are ranting and doing drive-by commits. Unfortunately, the mount code is core functionality, that when it doesn't work properly, people complain *A LOT*, so treading carefully is key. Cheers. -- Craig Rodrigues rodrigc@crodrigues.org