From owner-cvs-all Mon Sep 30 18:37:30 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE4337B401; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E33543E4A; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@queasyweasel.com) Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g911bSh25309; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:20 -0700 Received: from twogun (twogun.apple.com [17.202.45.118]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g911bRb28558; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:37:27 -0700 Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include Makefile getopt.h src/lib/libc/stdlib Makefile.inc getopt_long.3 getopt_long.c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v543) Cc: Eric Melville , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org To: obrien@FreeBSD.org From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" In-Reply-To: <20021001011252.GB82611@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-Id: <57D319C8-D4DE-11D6-847B-000393038CC8@queasyweasel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG This is just silly. You're arguing that the work should have been done in advance of the API entering the system? What kind of sense does that make? And if he'd come in and committed the entire body of work as a block, you'd have complained even MORE loudly because he'd not only added the API but changed everything to use it without you first having had the opportunity to complain bitterly about the API entering the system at all. These are circular arguments and your tone from the very outset of this discussion also makes it more than clear that you're not interested in any kind of rational exchange of ideas about this, you're interested in berating Eric and are now taking him to task for not having the "decency" to respond to an obviously hostile committer who's intentions and motives are less than clear and to whom responding can only further inflame things. If anything, Eric should be commended for his self-control in not prolonging a debate which clearly went off the rails before it even started. If you're genuinely interested in FreeBSD's welfare and architectural discussion for new APIs, then coming into such exchanges like a pitbull on bad acid is clearly NOT the most desirable way of going about it! If anything, it merely makes people run and hide in the hope you'll stop growling by the door if they lock it and try not to make any noise. Now that getopt_long is in the system, we can first discuss whether people want to obsolete the other copies (which requires examining them to make sure there's no divergence in their functionality) and then proceed to do so in an orderly manner. The world will not end spontaneously by taking things at a measured pace. - Jordan On Monday, Sep 30, 2002, at 18:12 US/Pacific, David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 12:49:52PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: >> Could you live with this policy: >> >> Tools in the base system may only use getopt_long to provide >> functionality offered in previously released versions of the >> base system. >> >> I think that as long as we constrain ourselves to using this for >> backward compatibility, we should be okay. > > I could live with it if the committer had actually made everything in > the > base tree that uses getopt_long, actually use the new version in libc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message