Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:46:41 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu> Cc: nate@rocky.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140146.SAA01144@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199511140138.UAA00517@crh.cl.msu.edu> References: <199511140136.SAA01103@rocky.sri.MT.net> <199511140138.UAA00517@crh.cl.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would never commit a patch that haven't been reviewed or at least > > tested on my own machines. Just because something 'looks like it > > solves' a problem doesn't mean it's a correct solution. It may simply > > hide the problem or move it to somewhere else. There is *nothing* worse > > than a poor fix. This is NOT to say that Matt's solution was poor, but > > until it is reviewed and tested it *shouldn't* go into the tree. > > Ack, I concur as well. What I meant was do a quick review instead of > a massive review for 2.2. Part of the problem I think is that Matt > doesnt have a track record here. I know (of) Matt from my Amiga days, > where he has done incredible amounts of work, including porting Unix > to the damn thing. He also had (is?) been running it on his heavily > loaded ISP company at the time if I'm not mistaken, lending it some > credibility. You have more information that the folks responsible for that part of the system. In any case, I'm going home now to watch football, and will shutup and not post anything else on this subject. In summary, I think the VM folks are doing a good job, and posting like 'Why didn't you do this, you had plenty of time' can sometimes come out wrong when you are the receiving end. This is a fun project, and the release folks are pretty stressed out right now. Wait until the release is out before pointing fingers at over-worked folks. :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140146.SAA01144>