From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 4 18:53:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E085216A4CE; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:53:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891F443D41; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:53:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i94Iqu8I031506; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200410041126.i94BQ273055417@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:55 -0400 To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.1 rm.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:53:01 -0000 At 6:31 PM +0200 10/4/04, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >"M. Warner Losh" writes: > > Please back this out. There's an ungoing discussion and it is > > far from clear that this is a sane idea. This is really bad > > committed etiquette. > >Take a deep breath and a couple of days off, then re-read >the so-called "ongoing discussion". It is a textbook example of >the bikeshed phenomenon, with hardly a single rational argument. There were some ration arguments. Few of the rational arguments were for making this change. I'd say back this change out. I would rather that we do nothing than we allow one committer to unilaterally decide when *he* thinks something is "a bikeshed", and therefore preempt the discussion from other developers. >Furthermore, there is nothing in it that hasn't already been said >over a year ago on the Austin Group mailing list Did the Austin group include my suggestion? Or did you even notice my suggestion? Or did you notice that several people liked my suggestion, except that it required more work than this simple change? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu