From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 23 12:57:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1341065679; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:57:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A93A8FC15; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o7NCk5CT048576; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:46:05 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:46:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20100823.064613.737751539211145619.imp@bsdimp.com> To: danfe@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20100823070057.GA6278@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C718595.5050304@FreeBSD.org> <20100823070057.GA6278@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: scottl@samsco.org, dougb@freebsd.org, rpaulo@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, bz@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, anchie@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r211501 - in head/sys: modules modules/send netinet netinet6 sys X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:57:27 -0000 In message: <20100823070057.GA6278@FreeBSD.org> Alexey Dokuchaev writes: : That said, I wish we all grow a thiker skin and start actually value the : criticism like we did in the old days. We do value criticism, when it is constructive, flexible and well timed. The point that everybody has been making is that Doug's criticism didn't meet these criteria. He chose a bad example (Ana already had a man page in review, evidently) and pressed it beyond all reason. The project has grown to this point because although we have guidelines, we intelligently apply them rather than having cast-in-stone rules (just look at our bylaws, for example). In addition, he presented no evidence to show that we have a problem that's worse than before. He didn't pick, say, those items added in the last year that still don't have documentation to bolster his case, nor did he research to see if there might be a small group of people that don't document and address his concerns to them rather than the whole group which my experience tells me is doing a good, but not perfect, job with documentation. In short, he flew off the handle at an issue he feels strongly about, and has been somewhat inflexible about accepting this very criticism. Warner