Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:56:29 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> To: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The future of fortune(6) Message-ID: <201711261856.vAQIuTDX006344@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: Your message "Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:22:50 -0700." <1511634170.23588.4.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Reference: > From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> > Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:22:50 -0700 Ian Lepore wrote: > On Sat, 2017-11-25 at 12:54 +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > Adrian Chadd wrote: > > (top posting corrected here) > > > > > > > > On 24 November 2017 at 08:47, Julian H. Stacey <jhs@berklix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > fortune(6) is listed in ring bound 4.3BSD System Index. > > > > Butchering on personal whim without prior agreement seems abuse. > > > > BSD should be [temporarily] reverted & the commit bit suspended, > > > > pending commiters' peer review of an un-authorised deletion. > > > > Then decide what what to do with fortune. > > > > > > hi, > > > Pardon me, but it's 2017 and the 4.3BSD system index isn't an immutable bible. > > > As a general push to packaging things in general, turning fortune into > > > a package seems like some low hanging fruit. > > > -adrian > > I avoided expressing opinion on where fortune might best be, to > > avoid distraction from the point: > > > > Commit bits are a privilege. Contentious commits forced through > > before discussion, should by policy be automaticaly reverted, > > & committers bit suspended, pending committer peer review - Not with > > reference to the desirability or otherwise of a commit, but for > > imposing on FreeBSD without prior discussion. > > > > Commiter conduct reviews should be seperate from > > discussion of desirability of a contentious commit. > > > > I'm not sure why you think you're qualified to comment on what policy > is, Learn to read. I wrote "Should" twice. I did not specify what policy IS. > but let me assure you You failed to comprehend, Doubt you can assure. > that virtually everything you've ever said on > the subject on the freebsd mailing lists is wrong. Subject ? Fortune ? Committer discipline ? Random Other ? > People reading this > thread should not make the mistake of thinking that you are associated > with the project in any way ...................^^^^^^^^^^ Don't exagerate. I've been with FreeBSD since it existed, on lots of FreeBSD mail lists, contributed numerous patches. I have a tree of patches still to contribute, but this sort of noise rather discourages. More importantly, this sort of meta noise discourages lots of others you will never hear from, from contributing to lots of projects, (a generic phenomena observed by many, far wider than FreeBSD). Numerous friends dont contribute to PD src/ projects cos they know this sort of meta noise grief they don't need. > or speak authoratatively about the project > and its policies. I never claimed to be authoritative or hold any FreeBSD office. I suggested there "Should" be more (professional style) responsibity. Criticising me personaly for that just distracts attention from a minority of the less responsible who would need to be more responsible. Cheers, Julian -- Julian H. Stacey, Computer Consultant, BSD Linux Unix Systems Engineer, Munich Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable. http://berklix.eu/brexit/ UK stole 3,500,000 votes; 700,000 from Brits in EU.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201711261856.vAQIuTDX006344>