From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 21 17:26:20 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 A615437B401; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594F743E4A; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471A02A7EA; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Bosko Milekic Cc: Mark Murray , phk@FreeBSD.ORG, "M. Warner Losh" , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alfre's malloc changes: the next step In-Reply-To: <20030121201845.A74822@unixdaemons.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:26:18 -0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20030122012618.471A02A7EA@canning.wemm.org> 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 Bosko Milekic wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 01:05:11AM +0000, Mark Murray wrote: > > > In message <20030121.144243.52206100.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" wr ites > > : > > > > > > >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. With my cvs hat on, I firmly support this. Dont back this out until an alternative course of action has been decided. Go from "here" to "there", not "here" to "back to square 1" and then "there". Repository whiplash serves nobody. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message