From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 4 23:34:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E44F37B401; Sun, 4 May 2003 23:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEB343F3F; Sun, 4 May 2003 23:34:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h456YfLr036668; Mon, 5 May 2003 08:34:41 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 05 May 2003 15:26:18 +0930." <20030505055618.GA84427@wantadilla.lemis.com> Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 08:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: <36667.1052116481@critter.freebsd.dk> cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Deliberately breaking software (was: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/vinum vinumioctl.c) X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 06:34:44 -0000 In message <20030505055618.GA84427@wantadilla.lemis.com>, "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" writes: >>> Forgotten by: phk >> >> Nope, I knew about it. > >And you broke it anyway? Why? No, vinum disregarded how our disk system worked and implemented only part of the API, that is why you needed a kludge option ("-v") in newfs for vinum. Compare this to ccd which did not need it. >I don't recall that. _That_ is not my problem. >Anyway, you can't force people to maintain software. I find it deeply ironic that you say this to distance yourself from your responsibility as author of vinum, right after trying (and before for that matter, you try again in this email) to force me into fixing vinum for you. But besides, we don't need to force people to maintain software: Either the software is valuable enough for somebody that they will maintain it, or it will rot away and be removed in due time. >I relinquished my maintainership for Vinum simply because I >couldn't work with you. That's your choice. By dropping vinum like a hot potato, you risk that nobody else picks it up (see above). And I may add that you did nothing to make it easy for me to help you with vinum. >Judging by your present attitude, I don't >think anything has changed. If you make changes, you should ensure >they don't break anything. I make sure not to break vinum at the level I can test it. Currently the only test-case I have for vinum is "does it compile ?", and since vinum is in LINT, that is an implict test for me. >Your change broke things. Don't blame the fact on other people. Vinum never followed the rules in the piece of the kernel where was stuffed in. Considering that I tried very hard to teach you how it had to behave, I don't think you can argue that I broke it and that I have to fix it: It was never unbroken to begin with. Right now, you still do not use disk_create() to create proper disk-device in vinum, and that means that features which work with other disk devices in the system do not work with vinum. When do you plan to fix that ? Or should I simply tell people that disk encryption does not, and will not ever work with vinum ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.