From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 21 17:17:16 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A4D037B401; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:17:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tesla.distributel.net (nat.MTL.distributel.NET [66.38.181.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B095B43F18; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:17:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by tesla.distributel.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M1Ijj74848; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:18:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:18:45 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Mark Murray Cc: phk@FreeBSD.ORG, "M. Warner Losh" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step Message-ID: <20030121201845.A74822@unixdaemons.com> References: <18555.1043185566@critter.freebsd.dk> <200301220105.h0M15BaX081212@grimreaper.grondar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200301220105.h0M15BaX081212@grimreaper.grondar.org>; from mark@grondar.org on Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:05:11AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:05:11AM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > In message <20030121.144243.52206100.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes > : > > > > >I think there'd be strong support for this. > > > > vote++; > > vote++; > > M > -- > Mark Murray > iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH I don't get it. What's the point of this "vote++" thing? Can you people state what your technical arguments are, for a change? Instead of arguing "this should have been done this way and this is not right and oh my G-d somebody call the fire department" why don't we sit back a little, take a few deep breaths, consider that OK, yes, the change should have been posted for review but it was not and now we have to decide on what the best approach is, based on TECHNICAL merit. Yes, I agree, it should have probably been given more of a review period but what's done is done so instead of backing out something that you may just end up recommitting anyway, tell us why you think it's technically wrong. I think that everyone ought to have the right to argue either case, but it has to be a technical discussion. Stop blindly urging a backout when all it may end up doing is bloating the repo even more than it already is. Regards, -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message