From owner-cvs-all Tue Feb 26 11:34:51 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54EA37B41A; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id A70C6AE27F; Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:34:38 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Julian Elischer Cc: Jake Burkholder , Matt Dillon , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 exception.s genassym.c machdep.c mp_machdep.c mpapic.c swtch.s vm_machdep.c src/sys/i386/include cpufunc.h pcb.h src/sys/i386/isa apic_vector.s clock.c icu_vector.s intr_machdep.c intr_machdep.h npx.c src/sys/kern ... Message-ID: <20020226193438.GL80761@elvis.mu.org> References: <20020226125029.B51363@locore.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i 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 * Julian Elischer [020226 11:23] wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote: > > > > > This patch was in dispute and still being discussed. Both jhb and bde > > had issues with it which were not resolved. It should not have been > > committed until these issues were resolved. This does not set a very > > good precedent for developer relations. Please back it out. > > Bde did not have major issues with it as far as I could see because he was > contributing to it.. > > > I'm with Matt on this one.. > Jhb has been consitantly failing to deliver for so long as far as > checking > in that it is now completely unrealistic to expect people to continue to > hold off. > > John can try merge his stuff with what is committed, and next time > he should learn to commit his stuff first and make Matt do the merging. I happen to agree with you guys (Matt, Julian). I swore I was tired of this argument but I'm going to say what I think should have happened. I do think that we need to make this a bit more process driven for fairness. How about from now on if _anyone_ raises an objection to changes because "they have something better in a local tree", that person will have one or two weeks to polish that code up and get it in the tree, otherwise the other work goes in. Maybe not one or two weeks but a firm deadline for the changes in progress to be put in. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message