From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 4 16:32:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802E316A4CE; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:32:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EB643D1D; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:32:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 9BAA85313; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:32:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 3C3105312; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:31:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 1A25EB861; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 18:31:59 +0200 (CEST) To: "M. Warner Losh" References: <200410041126.i94BQ273055417@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com> From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:31:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:53:11 -0600 (MDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.64 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-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 16:32:08 -0000 "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. Furthermore, there is nothing in it that hasn't already been said over a year ago on the Austin Group mailing list (except for "Unix is *supposed* to be hard!"), and the Austin Group concluded that the change was correct, though outside the scope of a Technical Corrigendum. In a couple of days, another poor soul will propose another trivial patch on a mailing list, and we'll all move on to the next bikeshed and forget we ever argued over this, and it will never come up again because *nobody will ever be negatively affected by this patch*. And in a couple of weeks or months, maybe Giorgios will have gathered enough courage to actually dare submit a patch for review again; or maybe he'll just stick to the doc tree, where (almost) nobody ever argues over anything. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no