From owner-cvs-etc  Tue Sep 19 04:12:46 1995
Return-Path: owner-cvs-etc
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id EAA26647
          for cvs-etc-outgoing; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:12:46 -0700
Received: from silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU [136.152.64.181])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id EAA26642
          ; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:12:41 -0700
Received: (from asami@localhost) by silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.9) id EAA01836; Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:12:35 -0700
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:12:35 -0700
Message-Id: <199509191112.EAA01836@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com
CC: paul@freebsd.org, CVS-commiters@freebsd.org, cvs-etc@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <2450.811505023@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc sysconfig
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami)
Sender: owner-cvs-etc@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

 * Well, yeah, a little bit - I agree.  rc.d, eh?  Hmmmmm...  Yeah, OK,
 * you convinced me! :-) I'll change it one last time before people start
 * using it, after which it'll be a lot harder.

Umm, can you back out ALL the changes?  I see that you already
commited this one, now we have 6 (counting both branches) commits to
this file in the past 12 hours or so, and we haven't even agreed what
to do with it! :<

 * I don't much like it either, but as Paul tends to overheat so easily
 * about stuff like this it's just simpler to just cave in and do it his
 * way rather than engage in a long and pointless argument over it.  I'm
 * too tired and/or busy to waste any more time with it.

It's not only your problem.  By "caving in" you are making life harder 
for others too.

By the way, one reason why Paul "overheated" so easily about this is
because there was a discussion in the ports list a while ago as he
already said (I assume you weren't there at that time), so your
initial commit was viewed as unilateral enforcement.

 * You're right, of course...  When I made the original change it was to
 * /etc and I thought of it as more of a "management" mechanism that
 * ports could use if they wanted to rather than a solution to the
 * general ports problem.  Ample precedent for this exists with SVR4 so I
 * didn't figure that I was breaking any new ground or going completely
 * off the rails with something for which no precedent existed.  When
 * Paul changed it to /usr/local he was treading firmly on your toes and
 * I just tried to fix it up a little (after firing off a couple of
 * shotgun blasts in Paul's direction for just mucking up my stuff, and
 * incorrectly at that, without even the kind of discussion period he
 * himself calls for so periodically).

Then his commit priviledges must go.  We have no room for cvs wars on
freefall, anyone who can't hold his fingers from blasting away
people's changes right in the middle of the discussion (or with no
discussion at all) are not welcome to the project! :<

Satoshi