From owner-freebsd-current Sun Feb 15 15:54:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19325 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:54:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA19311 for ; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 15:54:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr01.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA11070; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 16:53:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr01.primenet.com(206.165.6.201) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd011038; Sun Feb 15 16:53:56 1998 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr01.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA08927; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 16:53:53 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199802152353.QAA08927@usr01.primenet.com> Subject: Re: CCD missing spl() call.. To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 23:53:53 +0000 (GMT) Cc: ccsanady@friley585.res.iastate.edu, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <20245.887530725@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 15, 98 00:18:45 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > [Not just to you, but also to Terry and those others who still > see some merit in submitting changes this way] [ ... ] I still have a problem with this: I want my code to go out to everyone who would have gotten it if it were simply integrated in -current or on a seperate branch of the -current tree, as SMP was. I think doing it via URL is an acceptable compromise, though there are those people who would have lokked at the patch that won't click a URL (maybe they are using a text-only system on a serial console, or whatever). The problem with send-pr'ing is that, as you say, things go to the bit-bucket anyway (even if a less ignoble one), and I am guaranteed an audience with the pr-meister (eventually), but it is only one person. My patches for the locking have now been tested by 10's of people instead of not tested by one pr-meister. I think the code is much more likely to be accepted if it has been tested by people other than myself. Two of the testers even found a bug that my internal validation suite and normal usage didn't expose (admittedly, it resulted from the reintegration of the code from an estranged source tree into a clean -current with no other patches... but still). One thing that would help is if send-pr used the Bcc: field, and offered me the option of specifying "also To:" on the too field. If I didn't specify "also To:", it would make the "To:" filed the normal To:" field and the "Bcc:" blank; otherwise it would put the "also To:" on the "To:" field and put the send-pr destination in the "Bcc:". This solves the alias loops problem that was mentioned as a reson to not "Cc:" your send-pr's. I would even be willing to live with the form filling-out, if I could send the thing to the intended audience *and* the bitbucket instead of just the bitbucket. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message