From owner-cvs-all Thu Sep 3 00:39:27 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from daemon@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA05788 for cvs-all-outgoing; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:39:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all) Received: from pluto.plutotech.com (mail.plutotech.com [206.168.67.137]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA05778; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gibbs@plutotech.com) Received: from narnia.plutotech.com (narnia.plutotech.com [206.168.67.130]) by pluto.plutotech.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA07921; Thu, 3 Sep 1998 01:38:14 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199809030738.BAA07921@pluto.plutotech.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Mike Smith cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" , Matt Dillon , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/scsi st.c In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:16:46 -0000." <199809030016.AAA01007@word.smith.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:32:07 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> Thanks for bothering to reply to my message about this change before >> committing it. > >Relax, Justin. You're not the only one with deadlines and a workload. This has nothing to do with my workload or that of anyone else. I have no problem with changes going into current or stable to fix deficiencies in the current SCSI system. What I don't want to see is new functionality committed at roughly the same time to the system in different branches that have different user interfaces ("mt comp" with different arguments or behavior, "chio" providing different volume tag semantics). Matt's been sitting on these changes for months. I don't understand the urgency that required them to be committed tonight before addressing what I consider valid issues. Why did Matt even bother to ask to have the changes reviewed? > Pot-kettle-black. Why don't we stick with the issues. -- Justin