From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 08:43:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D491065675 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:43:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar.tikhiy@gmail.com) Received: from fk-out-0910.google.com (fk-out-0910.google.com [209.85.128.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E398FC1A for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:43:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yar.tikhiy@gmail.com) Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b27so2108384fka.11 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:43:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender; bh=kgFlGqfj5iIu7Gt+Yu+hlZoKv+SsXVzs4YjO3/3glZM=; b=xgn9JzLXONNnyjTLLxs/A0gfs9M8tSgax7kOOyTMbFkRCLlzuJuC1XDKcodT/TtakeGw8RF4p2R64JtTtSmlazW2k5lyi8ffuKBuO2LQoKHEyoI7F3eAWZZ1fMq8BQ3iD/dV2Psz0XnRwY7BiKss2h92QkShQ29giwr/oNi4+zI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender; b=XTV2WPanbBSzAUDUpKGaEd3P3EbtcWdMyLF/YrqLeBcK0jtazX3jGQ5V/PaTz/oWMojIbBIFkUHFmjhhMAVQ30oxH8vu47Hk8uM59qAkGf1yCxdaxkG/CmMOz40uJTFQ+BK087PlSJSHnroUqEkVnH0RvuyyYhRkpCPIC88NGwc= Received: by 10.82.175.17 with SMTP id x17mr6825241bue.2.1204793034569; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:43:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from dg.local ( [83.237.57.117]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t10sm2752153muh.13.2008.03.06.00.43.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:43:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:43:54 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy To: Craig Rodrigues Message-ID: <20080306084354.GA10064@dg.local> References: <200803050825.m258Ppv2016738@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080305122029.GA7027@dg.local> <20080305222402.GA80407@crodrigues.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080305222402.GA80407@crodrigues.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: Yar Tikhiy 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: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:43:57 -0000 On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 10:24:02PM +0000, Craig Rodrigues wrote: > 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. I'd appreciate if you respond to my technical criticism in equally _technical_ terms and refrain from diverting the discussion onto the moralization road. -- Yar