From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 30 01:44:09 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 9FDF116A4CE; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:44:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D1443D54; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:44:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (kensmith@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i9U1i8Io017939; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kensmith@localhost) by electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i9U1i807017938; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:44:08 -0400 From: Ken Smith To: Alfred Perlstein Message-ID: <20041030014408.GA17500@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <200410290824.i9T8Oflr047896@repoman.freebsd.org> <200410291338.50383.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041029234823.GW24892@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041029234823.GW24892@elvis.mu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.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: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:44:09 -0000 On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:48:23PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * John Baldwin [041029 12:49] wrote: > > On Friday 29 October 2004 04:24 am, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > alfred 2004-10-29 08:24:41 UTC > > > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > > > Modified files: > > > sys/kern kern_sig.c > > > Log: > > > Backout 1.291. > > > > > > re doesn't seem to think this fixes: > > > Desired features for 5.3-RELEASE "More truss problems" > > > > Umm, the todo list always lags the fixes. This is nothing personal, it's just > > that approving requests, etc. takes up most of re@'s limited time. Geez. > > Usually the reson the todo gets updated is that someone explicitly e-mails > > re@ saying "you can move this item from todo to done". As with other e-mails > > sent to re@ (like MFC requests), if they don't respond to it, it probably got > > lost in the bitbucket, so you have to resend it until you get an ack. (Kind > > of like TCP. :-P) > > I made 3-4 requestss, each one had an ACK that said, "sorry, right > on it!" > > It's just not acceptable. Ok, last try at a compromise. If I commit the fix to todo before you put your fix back in is that a sufficient show of good faith and a sufficient apology for having let it slide as long as it has? If possible I would like this to end on at least a slightly more amicable note than where it currently appears to be headed. As was said, the lack of action on this was due to having more things we can/should be doing than will ever actually get done combined with bad luck on the timing of your requests. Nothing more. Some stuff we should do simply will never get done. 5.3-RELEASE can happen if the todo list is a bit behind reality. This was never meant as a purposeful directed act against you. I do however see how it could be interpreted as a lack of appreciation for your work. It was never intended as such and having apparently left you with that impression I do apologize for. -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel |