From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Nov 26 01:31:09 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E1DC53CF5; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 01:31:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C701016EB; Sat, 26 Nov 2016 01:31:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id h133so12366708ioe.2; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:31:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Eln8uNCVGxbi0ytf5vmYpusKLOlfij7div4BhMPjC94=; b=lYTEvyc4wF07GTljvKMI5YX7W9iWKZ64iFnEXA/OaTbIEsBg18TKVME4CXqkumAGAM EiMY31LhqqY5rqqJAPH+m4eeKKj4hxIxxzytuft1qTreOgkMzuSjxmwFXPmDGQqQJLS1 VRD9+odE1KD/iOPXXk2pxBLlWf5i+OAZWZ/NOm/jlDMSUrIdwvEq1fmW5XE8HNRtmwTZ YMhoWnI0r1Dbmm5+JWR1oFmDJJ0XHXg5rcV/a4NYiPtFlDAb0F240QnghBZoLje5yrYz iDZnrQ0hxHKHpTHHo+UNe0K2dtqSrILiPwM/N/e5smTS10rrkaX7XTvOSRtWV0R1C2Ob HJpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Eln8uNCVGxbi0ytf5vmYpusKLOlfij7div4BhMPjC94=; b=mwA5ZPCdB4lvYuREqBhrnMvRHPNqz6kabFSJLDogUOyCShni1H/4I2C4F0odSERbVP 0Kt22CPAMFta4AwtQJRxPO3B5UFucBWiYmxJYS4fFDBHAH0qc7mjFRqZHXBqBMyUQKoY oMcyJqeSs/gSccHYY1FRJgx2+qRoDM9OYluH1V/Z1FOajN7fWWkdeWFRfIy4hzzAo0nk DvafBS9KETkNJzzeuYke7TsrQncViyfdWmV9vZHR9RLQofmaZ3sV218qyxsudQ0Hd0cR kmEq7DoaKZtGwf2xQRJ3IyXSwwKusg1TDiizm0XRty351alpCc5R84LrJi8K1YauxYhT glmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01j+QjN6EaxAWLMdsFuHiwNIxAdKG8PQn+m15JVp3vkCxpDIcVwZ3VvtNvfR1FngHqcrTwui5/M9EfpGQ== X-Received: by 10.107.19.164 with SMTP id 36mr9839897iot.155.1480123868840; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:31:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: carpeddiem@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.27.212 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:30:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86vavc3bwm.fsf@desk.des.no> References: <201611241450.uAOEoLA5079215@repo.freebsd.org> <861sy0n8re.fsf@desk.des.no> <2094160.1ufjjsmd6m@ralph.baldwin.cx> <86vavc3bwm.fsf@desk.des.no> From: Ed Maste Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 20:30:48 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: tG7dmoU8E07_zRRzOCF2TRADv14 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r309109 - head/lib/libutil To: =?UTF-8?Q?Dag=2DErling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= Cc: John Baldwin , Marcelo Araujo , Marcelo Araujo , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2016 01:31:10 -0000 On 24 November 2016 at 14:39, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > > Precisely. If memory serves, I wrote that comment after receiving a > patch from someone who made the same mistake that I had already made and > reverted *twice*. It's the logical, sane thing to do: replace a BSD > primitive with the equivalent POSIX primitive, except the latter has > subtly different semantics and works in some of flopen(3)'s typical use > cases, but not all, and crucially, not in the pidfile(3) case. In other words, nobody else has changed this code, and in one case where someone proposed a broken patch they did it by contacting you directly. This seems like exactly the desired behaviour, without needing any warning in the code. The comment added in r309109 hardly seems appropriate for this case, especially given that the revision history doesn't offer much insight. Please rephrase the comment to explain instead why the "obvious" improvements are not appropriate. > I just remembered that I wrote a unit test for flopen(3). So maybe the > comment is redundant... if you assume that people build and run the > tests, and I'm willing to bet that they don't, because our test > framework is not very developer-friendly. I share your frustration with the lack of developer friendliness in our tests. But running the test suite must be a part of the release checklist and if the test detects a regression here our process must prevent it from making it into a release.