From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 1 01:56:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078041065672; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:56:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4D98FC16; Wed, 1 Jul 2009 01:56:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from [128.205.32.76] (bauer.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.76]) (authenticated bits=0) by phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu (8.14.1/8.13.7) with ESMTP id n611ukCE045917 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:56:52 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu) From: Ken Smith To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20090630.164009.2130804684.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <0E6D4FB2-A485-40ED-A856-ACC311A90EFE@msys.ch> <20090630.141340.289711551.imp@bsdimp.com> <7B9C309F-63E3-4CB8-9871-DE2DEE010096@msys.ch> <20090630.164009.2130804684.imp@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-rPAf4LmI0iJmVtR9lSC8" Organization: U. Buffalo CSE Department Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:56:42 -0400 Message-Id: <1246413402.70460.23.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port X-DCC--Metrics: phoebe.cse.buffalo.edu 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, mbr@FreeBSD.org, marc@msys.ch, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r195200 - in head/usr.sbin: . wake X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:56:56 -0000 --=-rPAf4LmI0iJmVtR9lSC8 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 16:40 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > I hate to be blunt, but this leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth, > even if at the end of the day you get your way. Translation: I did it again. I hate it when that happens... :-( Two things happened here that were a bit unfortunate, and Marc/Martin (most likely unintentionally) tripped over it. The first thing that left a bad taste in some peoples' mouth is this new thing got approved past the point I had said many times was to be the end of new things getting added. But people complained the warnings I had given were buried in messages that had too much other information in them instead of short and to-the-point messages. So deadlines for a few things got extended in short and to-the-point messages yesterday and this pending request fell into one of those categories. The second thing that left a bad taste in some peoples' mouth is that this apparently (strictly judging by the fallout discussions) didn't get as much peer review as some people would have liked. Normally some level of discussion happens on some public mailing lists (not private email among a few potentially interested parties). And even after that happens and the commit gets made there is some time for fallout discussions to happen. Depending on the results of those potentially lengthy discussions it might wind up being backed out. But because of the stage of the release cycle we're in me having approved this can be viewed as short-circuiting the normal public review because odds are it will wind up staying despite some peoples' opinions due to the stage of the release cycle we're in. That second thing is one of the things that I think we're stuck with as part of the release process, but I really need help from you folks on. It's very much like the rant I made about the commit requests. And like I said above I fell for this before, during the 7.0 release cycle. During that release cycle it resulted in a rant with the subject line "I'm not Head Dictator In Charge". People complain if we lock out *all* new additions, even ones as relatively simple as a new command, too early in the release cycle. So we *consider* allowing new stuff that truly shouldn't impact the stability of the pending release until right around now in the release cycle. But we need to be able to trust that if you send in a commit request for something new like this that you've already done the peer review type stuff. RE approval for something like this doesn't trump normal peer review. The alternative is to flat out lock out *all* new stuff no matter how seemingly simple it is earlier in the release cycle just to avoid the problem that maybe someone will try to sneak something through without sufficient peer review. Thanks... --=20 Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel | --=-rPAf4LmI0iJmVtR9lSC8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkpKwlIACgkQ/G14VSmup/aGIgCdFd3DCAE4jxMEBUUt62KKIuB7 q/4AoJtf5X3NJPtKKz4EIDt5mQHvlJpi =OHyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-rPAf4LmI0iJmVtR9lSC8--