Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:20:21 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, mckay@thehub.com.au, obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unmoronify CVS Message-ID: <200203141420.g2EEKLP15630@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <xzpit8013n6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> from Dag-Erling Smorgrav at "Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:53:01 %2B0000" References: <xzphenkfaif.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200203132158.g2DLwW611237@green.bikeshed.org> <20020313143522.A13768@dragon.nuxi.com> <xzpit8013n6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 13th March 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: >To summarize, val-tags saves a little time in a small number of cases, >is useless in most cases, and outright harmful in many common cases. Val-tags has caused me nothing but irritation. It has never assisted me in any way. It deserves to die. Who here is helped by val-tags? It seems to be just plain wrong from the day it was added. >And all this is a waste of my time; rather than ask why I want it >removed, you should accept that I (and many others) consider it an >incredible nuisance, and focus instead on explaining how *you* benefit >from it, so we can understand why you're opposed to my patch. That's not the normal way to go about things. Normally you explain why changing things is a good idea. Sort of an "innocent until proven guilty" idea. Once you've got a good argument *for* changing things it's time to look for arguments *against* changing it, not the other way round. But that little nit aside (which, let's face it, got up some people's noses), I fully agree with your argument. I'm frankly surprised you had to spell it all out. I expected a chorus of "Hell yeah!" and a quick commit. Stephen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203141420.g2EEKLP15630>