From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Fri Mar 15 02:05:56 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8149815376D5; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:05:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDC3A80AD1; Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:05:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id x2F25qSC027857; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 19:05:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id x2F25qtD027856; Thu, 14 Mar 2019 19:05:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201903150205.x2F25qtD027856@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: svn commit: r345138 - head/share/man/man9 In-Reply-To: To: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 19:05:52 -0700 (PDT) CC: Ed Maste , "Rodney W. Grimes" , src-committers , svn-src-all , svn-src-head Reply-To: rgrimes@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CDC3A80AD1 X-Spamd-Bar: ------ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.95 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.952,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 02:05:56 -0000 > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:43 PM Ed Maste wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 14:55, Rodney W. Grimes > > wrote: > > > > > > We should of documented what the decision process and criteria was > > > that lead to the decission to uuencode the files. > > > > Doing some archaeology, the first instance of a uuencoded file I can > > find is r1796, "Got rid of a couple of binary files by uuencoding. 49 > > more to go." There's no explanation of why the change was made. > > Evidence suggests that in 1994 it was just accepted as impossible or > > not permitted to have binary files in the tree, but this has not been > > the case for quite some time. > > > > CVS had issues with them. sup had issues with them (remember sup?). CTM > originally didn't cope but does now (not sure when that changed). Diff and patch had issues with them, and still do? > By the time I joined in 95 or so, it was already part of the oral > tradition. It was all over the mailing lists and just something you were > expected to know. I even have a recollection of people screwing up and > there being CVS repo surgery to remove the binary version and bring forward > only the .uu versions. But that was 20ish years ago, so I'm not certain. Yes, there was some cvs admin and/or rm's done, not exactly repo surgery, which did occur on other types of repairs, some very poorly. > > > Thus we could easily revist that criteria, see how much of it no > > > longer applies, possible add counter criteria, and change this > > > decision, with it documented as to why it changed. > > > > With none of this documented anywhere I'm going to rely on oral > > history from you, phk, or other FreeBSD committers active in the mid > > 90s to provide guidance on what we can revisit and what to check if it > > no longer applies. > > > > It no longer applies. svn copes well, git copes well, perforce coped well > (though not too relevant these days). > > IIRC, there used to be something about it in the CVS section of one of the > handbook chapters, but all that stuff was removed a long time ago and may > be hard to find today. This rings a bell. > > The reason not to do it is uuencoding adds about a 40% space penalty, > > adds to the build time (to uudecode), and makes changes harder to > > review. In my mind dropping the unnecessary uuencoding is similar to > > dropping build-time patching of files in the source tree (another > > workaround we used to have for limitations of our older VCS). > > > > Yes. Bringing a file off a vendor branch was generally greeted with much > gnashing of teeth and much bile. And for good reason: the person taking it > off the vendor branch was trivial, but it caused real and lasting conflicts > for every single new import after that. The pain was real, and borne by the > maintainer, not by the taker-off-the-brancher. How do the tools today deal with taking a binary off the vendor branch? Isn't this still a for-ever night mare merge thing to deal with? > > > As is this is just another semi documented project guideline change, > > > I believe there are more than just the firmware files that this > > > change needs noted on. > > > > Yes, we should look at the other cases where we unnecessarily uuencode > > things. I'm not quite sure where we would document high level things > > like this though, do you have a suggestion? I could see a case for > > somewhat similra topics (e.g. 7-bit ASCII/UTF-8/ISO-8859 guidance) > > fitting into style.9, but I'm not sure this one does. > > > > This feels more like committer guide material, not style.9 to me. The > committer guide is showing its age and collection of random detritus that > we need to reorganize and update. This is one of the many issues. I agree on location, in or near the committers guide. It may be time to expand that to have a procedures section (how to vendor import, how to MFC, etc), and a guidelines section (commit messages, must/should/ can/shall not etc) > > > > > We should also note that if they are already in uuencode state > > > to leave them in uuencode state, or do we intened to convert > > > them on next commit, or ??? > > > > Good point, converting existing .uu files to binary is just > > unnecessary churn and is not recommended. If someone is going to make > > a change it can be done with the next update. > > > > I'd convert them when there's some other reason to handle them. I'm not > swayed by the churn argument, but more because there's little gain here, at > the moment, and it would take someone's time. But if someone takes the > time, I wouldn't stand in the way. Agree, and that is probably all the document should say on that subject. > Warner -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org