From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 20:56:18 2003 Return-Path: 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 CE15316A4CE for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:56:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from vette.gigo.com (vette.gigo.com [216.218.228.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF51143FAF for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:56:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lioux@brturbo.com) Received: from 200.101.111.208 (200-101-111-208.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.101.111.208]) by vette.gigo.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A6E5775 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:47:40 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 27197 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Nov 2003 04:07:36 -0000 Message-ID: <20031111040736.27196.qmail@exxodus.fedaykin.here> Received: (qmail 333 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 23:47:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 23:47:14 -0000 Received: from pop3.uol.com.br by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-6.2.2) for lioux-freebsd@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 05 Sep 2003 20:47:14 -0259 (BRT) Received: from peart.uol.com.br (172.26.5.177) by mtauol7.mail.sys.intranet (5.1.071) id 3EDB5C0C012ED73A for lioux-freebsd@uol.com.br; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:26:48 -0300 Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [216.136.204.119]) by storm9.uol.com.br (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F606DDC for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:26:47 -0300 (BRT) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FF957DAE for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-src-committers@FreeBSD.org) Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 5679F16A4F2; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: lioux@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 538) id BBFCE16A4C1; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: src-committers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5293C16A4BF; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F8443FDF; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from 12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com ([12.234.22.23]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <200309052326060130036ve6e>; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 23:26:06 +0000 From: Doug Barton To: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: <20030905212233.GB590@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <42548.1062488547@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030902004917.S6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br> <20030905110128.Y8003@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030905135542.M90946@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> <20030905212233.GB590@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-src-committers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG cc: Alexey Dokuchaev cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/rescue/rescue Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:56:19 -0000 X-Original-Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:26:05 -0700 (PDT) X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:56:19 -0000 On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Yes, you can. The agreement is reached when everybody accepts the > outcome. This is unrelated to whether everybody likes the outcome. I would argue that we're now discussing two different things.... consensus on the result, versus consensus on what the desired result is, and the method(s) of achieving it. However, I won't quibble further. > > Don't take this the wrong way, but with an attitude like that, how do > > you get out of bed in the morning? > > Willpower, eased by the habit of getting out of bed in the afternoon. LOL... touche. > > The consensus was that we'd use > > seperators for all NEW knobs, and go back and deal with the rest if time > > allows. > > Yes, the first part of the sentence I remember. I can't recall the > second part. If my memory is failing on me and we did in fact reach > that consensus, then there's nothing to argue about. Otherwise we > still need to get clear ruling on that last part. As promised, I posted my bikeshed blueprints for this on -arch. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection