From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 1 01:39:25 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E8F16A400; Tue, 1 May 2007 01:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFC1613C448; Tue, 1 May 2007 01:39:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 9C1C41A4DB3; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:39:57 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Andrey Chernov , Roman Kurakin , src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20070501013957.GX13868@elvis.mu.org> References: <200704301516.l3UFGJbu019162@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070430180043.GK13868@elvis.mu.org> <20070430181824.GA83415@nagual.pp.ru> <20070430225717.GA7008@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20070501000242.GA19510@nagual.pp.ru> <20070501002817.GA887@nagual.pp.ru> <463690FE.9000209@inse.ru> <20070501010709.GA1304@nagual.pp.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070501010709.GA1304@nagual.pp.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/sysinstall main.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 01:39:26 -0000 Using the strategy "commit to -current then suffer the fallout" is pretty bogus. I don't understand why some form of compatibility or #define wasn't thought out before hand. This stands out like "fixing select" to record time elapsed into the timevals, POSIX'ly correct, but incorrect for FreeBSD, without more thought. * Andrey Chernov [070430 18:07] wrote: > On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 04:59:42AM +0400, Roman Kurakin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Since there is some noise around this, could we just scream for a while > > that code should be fixed but allow it to still work? After some time than > > the majority of the buggy code will be fixed we will stick to the std > > behavior? IMHO this will be less painful. > > Nice idea, but depends of amount of problem reports I'll got. If the > number will be small, there is no pain to be std. After my last commit I > not get any report yet (excepting unclear "some two ports", without > names). > > BTW, screaming can be only for args checking. For putenv() right or > wrong usage can't be detected inside lib. > > -- > http://ache.pp.ru/ -- - Alfred Perlstein