From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 7 16:53:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F2E16A4CE for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:53:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5285243D4C for ; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:53:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i57GrnIX019596; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:53:49 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <05a201c44c82$d94fc680$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <05a201c44c82$d94fc680$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:53:47 -0400 To: "Cyrille Lefevre" , From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) Subject: Re: Re: ps enhencements (posix syntax, and more) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 16:53:50 -0000 At 2:31 AM +0200 6/7/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: >Garance A Drosihn wrote: >>At 12:03 PM +0200 4/27/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: >>>here is a description of the last PR#64803 updates : >> >>The latest info I see in PR #65803 does not match some >>things that you describe in the rest of this message. >>The following comments are based on what I have looked >>at in the updates in the PR. I have not had much sleep, >>so this message may be a little confusing in parts. >> >>>*** the kernel part has been reworked and validated in >>> the last patch set. ...OpenBSD -k ... >> >>I haven't looked at what you have for -k, but I did try >>what you had for KERN_PROC_SESSION and it didn't seem to > >work. Please do not take my private messages and reply to them in public. If I thought we had to hash out every little detail in public, I would have sent my messages to the mailing list... > > I probably should, but I fear that before I have the > > time to read & understand & test & install those > > updates, you will just have rewritten them all over > > again. This is a bit frustrating... > >I didn't understand why you want to reinvent the wheel ? There is a key point that you are overlooking. I was already working on my own large updates to `ps' before you sent any messages to any mailing lists. I was discussing those publicly on the mailing lists. The major changes that I committed in April was just the "safe part" of the larger work I was doing. It was the parts of my larger change that I felt were safe to MFC into 4.x-stable. At the time I was pushing those in to 5.x-current so I could have them adequately tested in time to MFC them before 4.10-release shipped. I did manage to do that. I then hit end-of-semester here at RPI, at which point I have zero free time. None. The remaining changes were things that I doubt I will ever MFC (just because there are too many differences between `ps' in 4.x vs 5.x). Right near the end of the public testing of that first set of changes, you showed up with your update, wishing that someone would pick up the update. You were probably not on the mailing list where my earlier discussion had been going on (freebsd-standards), so you missed that I was already working on `ps'. I am not "reinventing the wheel" after you wrote your update. I am not doing that any more (or any less) than you were. We just both happened to start working on this at about the same time. Things like this just happen from time-to-time... I am continuing with updates I was already working on before you presented your huge update. You were quite enthusiastic about your changes, so initially I put my work on hold and asked you various issues I saw in your updates. I sent multiple messages. I got no answers. After a few weeks of waiting, I finally had some free time again so I decided to go back to the work I was already doing. I did that because I tried various parts of your update and THEY DID NOT WORK. Thus, it is much *LESS* work for me to continue with the updates that I already understood (because I am writing them...), than to figure out what all 4,000 lines of your update was doing, and all the side-effects of that update. My updates do not address everything that your massive update addresses, but then your massive update does not cover some of the things I have in the pipelines. No matter how we slice it, it will take work to combine the two streams. If I am the one doing the commits, then I need to understand the code I am committing. The biggest mistakes I have made have happened when I committed someone else's update because "it looks OK", without really understanding what it did. I do not intend to make that mistake again. It will take me a fair amount of time to understand all that is done by your update -- and I am not going to commit any of it until I am sure that I understand it. If my name is on the commit, then I will be the person responsible for it. I am still interested in looking over your changes, so I will check the PR. Right now I am actually focused on newsyslog, but I'll look at these when I get back to looking at `ps'. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu