From owner-freebsd-current  Wed May 21 10:39:08 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA23157
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23151
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA02976; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>, rob@ideal.net.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: IPDIVERT broken? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 May 1997 10:14:03 PDT."
             <33832D5B.13728473@whistle.com> 
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:39:04 -0700
Message-ID: <2972.864236344@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Despite this, I agree with garrett's changes, but wish he'd done the
> other protocols while he had it all in his head.

I agree with his changes too, just not the fashion in which they were
done.  In any case, with the possible exception of Bruce, I think
there is enough core team agreement about this that I hope this will
be the last time we see something done this way.

I personally don't mind waiting longer for a commit if it also means
it'll be done fully and correctly, and the next time I see a "I'm
going to do xxx which breaks the tree" message go by, I'm going to
respond with "No, you most certainly are not.  Do the commit and fix
the tree at the same time or simply forget about until you're
genuinely ready."

Unintentional breakage is something else, of course, and not within
the scope of this discussion.

						Jordan