Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:44:15 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu (Charles Henrich), nate@rocky.sri.MT.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns Message-ID: <199511140144.SAA01129@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199511140130.SAA18501@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199511140126.UAA00419@crh.cl.msu.edu> <199511140130.SAA18501@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Reviewing the VM patch and not bringing it into 2.1 ] > I find it hard to believe too, since all that is required is that you > understand the code. Matt clearly had to do this to generate the > patches in the first place, and we must assume that the people who > wrote it understand it enough to predict the results. Gee, and I suspect you've never written a bad patch before. Geeze folks, let's get real now. > It's not like this is magic or anything... it's complex, yes, but that > doesn't make it beyond mortal ken. It also doesn't mean that the patch is bad, but *BECAUSE* it is complex it is often difficult to miss subtle features (as you have shown in the past :]) and necessary code to get things working right. Even your FS patches were missing some critical things. If they would have been committed as submitted, FS corruption and/or panics *would* have occurred. Does this mean you didn't understand all of the issues? Maybe *grin*, but I'll bet it means you're human more than anything else. Why do you think I avoid the kernel so much? If I break 'man', people's machines won't blow up in their faces and cause them to re-install all the while cursing name. :) :) :) :) Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511140144.SAA01129>