From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 14:49:06 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7532B16A4D1 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail4.speakeasy.net (mail4.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F5E43D3F for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:49:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 15389 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2004 22:49:04 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 24 Mar 2004 22:49:04 -0000 Received: from 10.50.40.205 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i2OMn1DF007371; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:49:01 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Julian Elischer Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:50:46 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200403241750.46400.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Doug Barton cc: "cvs-src@FreeBSD.org" cc: "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" cc: "src-committers@FreeBSD.org" cc: David O'Brien cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/usr.bin/doscmd AsyncIO.c AsyncIO.h Makefile Makefile.dos PROBLEMS ParseBuffer.c README README.booting_dos bios.c callback.c callback.h cmos.c com.h config.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:49:06 -0000 On Wednesday 24 March 2004 05:35 pm, Julian Elischer wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Doug Barton wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > I think most people heard "tjr assented to waiting" as the end of the > > > discussion. > > > > > > remember emails can get re-orderred.. > > > > This is where a good threaded mail reader helps. :) Seriously though, > > is there a strong, well-reasoned objection to the action by des, or can > > we let this one go? As I said, my opinion is biased, but I don't see any > > harm here on the tech side, nor do I see any bad faith on des' part. > > I don't think that, now that it's done, we should bring it back, but I > do think that he got a different impression about the conversation that > I got. Yes. I honestly don't care enough about doscmd(8) to want any changes from the current situation, but my reading of the thread was that the consensus was, if anything, to wait until 6.0. Upon re-reading the thread, I do see that while DES did say he would provide patches to do what he did, he never sent a mail saying 'Ok, here are the patches I'm going to commit on foo day' whereas Tim did sent out a RFC before doing actual action. Given the amount of pushback that Tim's request received, it seems to me it would have been good form to have at least posted something to the effect of 'Ok, I've got the patches do this now and am going to do so.' -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org