From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 1 23:56:38 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF9A16A41B for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:56:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A29B13C461 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:56:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 13874 invoked by uid 399); 1 Aug 2007 23:56:38 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 1 Aug 2007 23:56:38 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <46B11DB4.2020606@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:56:36 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yann Berthier References: <46B01D5E.6050004@psg.com> <20070801110727.GC59008@menantico.com> <46B0EDEA.8050608@FreeBSD.org> <18097.4424.855875.392421@roam.psg.com> <46B1135A.10706@FreeBSD.org> <20070801232731.GH37961@bashibuzuk.net> In-Reply-To: <20070801232731.GH37961@bashibuzuk.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable Subject: Re: default dns config change causing major poolpah X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:56:39 -0000 Yann Berthier wrote: > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, at 16:12, Doug Barton wrote: > >> So no changes should be made unless everyone agrees? > > no way everybody would agree on that. However: > > . you would have made your change with some support (presumably) in > the freebsd community, and with the benediction (or at least no > opposition) from the rootops > . everybody would have been aware of the upcoming change > > Look, now you were asked to remove b - all of this could have been > avoided with some appropriate PR You're right about more PR in advance being a good thing, and for the lack of that, I apologize. I don't think that "all" of the drama could have been avoided in any case, there is too much emotion surrounding this issue. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection