From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 13 13:04:28 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB544106566B; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:04:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDCA18FC19; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F9DF46B6C; Sat, 13 Mar 2010 08:04:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:04:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Rui Paulo In-Reply-To: <43586297-42AF-46F7-9B55-6A9BADD78752@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <201003111449.o2BEn6QY069179@svn.freebsd.org> <3F878223-7A35-4A27-9DA8-92239C635EC1@FreeBSD.org> <43586297-42AF-46F7-9B55-6A9BADD78752@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Nathan Whitehorn Subject: Re: svn commit: r205014 - in head: . sys/amd64/amd64 sys/amd64/conf sys/amd64/include sys/amd64/linux32 sys/compat/freebsd32 sys/compat/ia32 sys/conf sys/fs/procfs sys/ia64/conf sys/ia64/ia64 sys/ia64/... X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:04:29 -0000 On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Rui Paulo wrote: >>> There's a lengthy discussion about this on another mailing list. >>> >>> This is unlikely to be changed and emailing the committer who provided >>> valuable time on this code wastes his time and everyone else's. >> >> So the user - the person to whom the software is made, theoretically - >> don't have the right to disagree when he sees a change that looks confusing >> "because the committers's time is too valuable". Sorry, I was not aware of >> that policy. Please forgive my audacity. Keep in mind that we, the users, >> are a bunch of idiots that don't like to become astonished by sudden >> changes in the meaning of the symbols that we use to see. Thanks God we >> have you, the holly committers to protect us from our own ignorance. > > You said that, I didn't. Please refrain from distorting my own words. If you > want something discussed, do it on the other list and, please, do it with a > grown up attitude because, quite frankly, what you wrote doesn't make sense. Guys, this is getting out of hand. All three messages in this thread were over the top, and a step back would be healthy at this point. Please assume that everyone involved here is a reasonable person, and that the origin of this disagreement lies in miscommunication: Rui assumed Carlos saw the (extensive) original thread and wasn't letting it die, and most likely Carlos never saw the thread and now feels unfairly accused. I certainly missed the original thread myself, and was a bit taken aback by Rui's reply until I managed to dig it up and see more context. Continuing the discussion any further would be unproductive, in this light. So, please, give it a rest. Robert