From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 26 17:13:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB8916A41F; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:13:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from mv.twc.weather.com (mv.twc.weather.com [65.212.71.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4F843D48; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:13:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.50.41.234] (Not Verified[10.50.41.234]) by mv.twc.weather.com with NetIQ MailMarshal (v6, 0, 3, 8) id ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:30:35 -0400 From: John Baldwin To: obrien@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:14:45 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200509271657.j8RGvj2n015326@repoman.freebsd.org> <200510251309.31811.jhb@freebsd.org> <20051026170139.GA99571@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20051026170139.GA99571@dragon.NUXI.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200510261314.46614.jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Roman Kurakin , cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/cp if_cp.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, 26 Oct 2005 17:13:51 -0000 On Wednesday 26 October 2005 01:01 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 01:09:30PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > Also, anyone with half a brain that reads commit mail knows that rik > > works on cp(4) and cx(4), so I think that your lack-of-MAINTAINERS claim > > is just a bunch of hot air personally. > > What ever. Others have complained that we have a situation where poeple > claim mainatainership, but make it too hard to figure out. The number of > files one changes to please a new compiler makes it too large a task to > do a 'cvs log' on every file change. We have an offical centralized > mechanism to state mainaintership AND a special location for source code > - so that others can easily know. If it isn't used, then the maintainer > shouldn't be claiming an issue about maintainership. He didn't claim that, you put that in his mouth. He just backed out your changes and replaced them with a much simpler version. If anything, his argument was to avoid rediculously large diffs and repo churn. Surely you of all people can understand those arguments give your history of jumping up and down over vendor branch stuff. You jumped up and down about how dare he back out your changes WITHOUT REGARD for the fact that he might have addressed your gcc 4.0 concerns already when he did his updates (I guess you couldn't be bothered to check that part even though it only took me about 5 clicks via cvsweb to find the relevant diff for the net changes). Given that he didn't just revert your changes entirely but solved the underlying problem in a different way it seems to me that his change is not a "backout" per se and that the argument should have ended right there. In fact, here's the cvsweb URL. You can see clearly how he changed things such that his commit wasn't a direct backout of your changes: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/cp/if_cp.c.diff?r1=1.28&r2=1.24.2.1&f=h Please have the courtesy to read the commit log (where rik mentioned the use of forward static function declarations, etc.) and then check the diff before going off half-coked making wild and baseless accusations complete with threats about bringing the whole mess up to core if the targeted developer doesn't cower in fear and cater to your whims. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org