Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 22:22:52 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: rob@ideal.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPDIVERT broken? Message-ID: <18183.864192172@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 May 1997 20:06:09 PDT." <199705210306.UAA12824@austin.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Yes, it was broken on April 27 by Garrett's "long-awaited > mega-massive-network-code-cleanup. Part I." Do a "cvs log > src/sys/sys/socketvar.h" for the gory details. Am I alone in thinking that changes which break other things in the source tree should be fixed by the changer? I mean, not to beat on Garrett's head or anything, but seriously: If I changed the interface for something in a standard library and parts of the world suddenly started breaking as a result, wouldn't I also be on the hook to go fix those things? Nobody would cut me any slack at all for saying "Naw, I don't have time. If you want to recover from this, fix it yourselves." It seems that if we are to survive as a project in the long-term, developers are going to have to take greater responsibility for their actions and be willing to follow *all* the way through on any changes made, repairing the results of any interface changes and essentially just being willing to make things work again on a tree-wide basis if they break. Since I include documentation in this category, one could even say that I screwed up in doing the rc.conf change without also committing a man page at the same time, so I'm not calling the kettle black, I'm simply saying that both it and the pot need to clean up their acts. ;-) Jordan P.S. The man page is sitting in my tree, half completed. Will work on changing that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18183.864192172>