Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:50:55 +0200 From: "Cyrille Lefevre" <clefevre-lists@9online.fr> To: <arch@freebsd.org>, "Garance A Drosihn" <drosih@rpi.edu> Subject: Re: ps enhencements (posix syntax, and more) Message-ID: <03a601c44ee9$92fa4c00$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <p0602042abce687fa7dd9@[128.113.24.47]> <05a201c44c82$d94fc680$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> <p06020442bcea4818868c@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Garance A Drosihn" <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > At 2:31 AM +0200 6/7/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > >Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > >>At 12:03 PM +0200 4/27/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > >>>here is a description of the last PR#64803 updates : > >> > >>The latest info I see in PR #65803 does not match some > >>things that you describe in the rest of this message. > >>The following comments are based on what I have looked > >>at in the updates in the PR. I have not had much sleep, > >>so this message may be a little confusing in parts. > >> > >>>*** the kernel part has been reworked and validated in > >>> the last patch set. ...OpenBSD -k ... > >> > >>I haven't looked at what you have for -k, but I did try > >>what you had for KERN_PROC_SESSION and it didn't seem to > > >work. > > Please do not take my private messages and reply to them in > public. If I thought we had to hash out every little detail > in public, I would have sent my messages to the mailing list... sorry, I though it was an error to not replying to all. > > > I probably should, but I fear that before I have the > > > time to read & understand & test & install those > > > updates, you will just have rewritten them all over > > > again. This is a bit frustrating... > > > >I didn't understand why you want to reinvent the wheel ? > > There is a key point that you are overlooking. I was already > working on my own large updates to `ps' before you sent any > messages to any mailing lists. I was discussing those publicly > on the mailing lists. The major changes that I committed in > April was just the "safe part" of the larger work I was doing. > It was the parts of my larger change that I felt were safe to > MFC into 4.x-stable. At the time I was pushing those in to > 5.x-current so I could have them adequately tested in time > to MFC them before 4.10-release shipped. I did manage to do > that. I then hit end-of-semester here at RPI, at which point > I have zero free time. None. > > The remaining changes were things that I doubt I will ever > MFC (just because there are too many differences between `ps' > in 4.x vs 5.x). Right near the end of the public testing > of that first set of changes, you showed up with your update, > wishing that someone would pick up the update. You were > probably not on the mailing list where my earlier discussion > had been going on (freebsd-standards), so you missed that I > was already working on `ps'. > > I am not "reinventing the wheel" after you wrote your update. > I am not doing that any more (or any less) than you were. We > just both happened to start working on this at about the same > time. Things like this just happen from time-to-time... ok, I did not understand you already does some work which conflict w/ my work. It was not really clear you already had done most your work. I understand you had implemented some work and though about some other work and you that you want to implement them your way. well, it's not exactly what I want to say, but a sort of. > I am continuing with updates I was already working on before > you presented your huge update. You were quite enthusiastic > about your changes, so initially I put my work on hold and > asked you various issues I saw in your updates. I sent multiple > messages. I got no answers. After a few weeks of waiting, I as said before, it was too bad I didn't receive all your messages which probably point the fact that the PR was missing some pieces. right now, I'll check that when I sent something, it reach its destination. > finally had some free time again so I decided to go back to the > work I was already doing. I did that because I tried various > parts of your update and THEY DID NOT WORK. Thus, it is much > *LESS* work for me to continue with the updates that I already > understood (because I am writing them...), than to figure out > what all 4,000 lines of your update was doing, and all the > side-effects of that update. hope that you'll be happy w/ the last all in one patches I sent. PS : I had to sent two times the userlang part ! I still didn't understand why some of my emails goes to the limbs :( > My updates do not address everything that your massive update > addresses, but then your massive update does not cover some > of the things I have in the pipelines. No matter how we slice > it, it will take work to combine the two streams. If I am the > one doing the commits, then I need to understand the code I am > committing. The biggest mistakes I have made have happened > when I committed someone else's update because "it looks OK", > without really understanding what it did. I do not intend to > make that mistake again. It will take me a fair amount of > time to understand all that is done by your update -- and I am > not going to commit any of it until I am sure that I understand > it. If my name is on the commit, then I will be the person > responsible for it. ok, take your time :) if you need some explaination, don't hesitate to ask me. > I am still interested in looking over your changes, so I will > check the PR. Right now I am actually focused on newsyslog, > but I'll look at these when I get back to looking at `ps'. so, we where not on the same wavelength and please accept my apologies regarding my comments. Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?03a601c44ee9$92fa4c00$7890a8c0>