Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:53:14 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Ermal Lu?i <eri@FreeBSD.org> Cc: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] merging projects/pf into head Message-ID: <20120907085314.GC44854@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <CAPBZQG1iQ31bxMkKOKUUFpfOt15YMxgx1hmnj3HsQSj%2B%2BGJYqw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120905115140.GF15915@FreeBSD.org> <50476187.8000303@gibfest.dk> <20120905183607.GI15915@glebius.int.ru> <CAPBZQG0a4WVB4W4OwF3CAJH-G4DTDan-Nz1HR1SFAgFOfe%2Ba=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120906064640.GL15915@glebius.int.ru> <CAPBZQG1iQ31bxMkKOKUUFpfOt15YMxgx1hmnj3HsQSj%2B%2BGJYqw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ermal, On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:02:47AM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote: E> > I won't keep OpenBSD-pf and FreeBSD-pf in parallel in FreeBSD. The OpenBSD-pf E> > port have proved to be poorly maintained. After last import that was made E> > by you, at least the following regressions were introduced: E> > E> > - enabling pfsync immediately panics E> > - kldunload pf.ko immediately panics E> > E> Going to personal attacks shows your willing to discuss as civilized person. E> Though that does not mean anything in the sense that bugs are there to E> be found by testers. Subtle and difficult to catch bugs are to be found by testers. Bugs that show up immediately after a subsystem had been started, shouldn't make their way to SVN. If I even agree with you that immediate crash on enabling pfsync should had been found not by you, but by a random FreeBSD-CURRENT user, then the next question would be: who is responsible to fix it? Let's look... A random user hits the panic and submits kern/159029. Who did fix that? Why not you? And here I am not picking at a certain exclusive bug that you missed. The bulk import of pf-4.5 was followed by dozens of bug fixes, most of which were done by bz@, pluknet@ and me. E> If you have not found out yet, testers for something that people take E> for granted as firewalls are scarce in general. Mistake. There are some people, who run my branch prior to its merge to head. More people then I expected. E> Something that has been learnt from history is that people want E> software X to be compatible with software Y from where it came from. E> They are not interested on X to use the same rules but hey its E> different from Y because of Z. From what I see, there is a another rule in FreeBSD. FreeBSD-N should be compatible not with OpenBSD-M, but with FreeBSD-(N-1). And idea to bring new syntax is breaking this rule. Haven't this been discussed before importing pf-4.5? E> > Hey, these aren't a difficult to catch bugs, that require special setup E> > or weeks of catching a race condition. This is basic functionality, and panics E> > are evidence that code wasn't tested properly. Okay, we all ain't saints, and E> > people do errors. But why wasn't you promptly fixing these errors? You just E> > dropped many Kb of code into SVN (via bz@) and then disappeared. Have you closed E> > at least on PR in GNATS? E> E> AFAIK i fixed any reported panics on freebsd-pf list. False. During the 9.0-RELEASE release cycle, linimon@ had thoroughly assigned all new pf bugs to freebsd-pf@ list. You took none of them. E> I did not even go the PR route because i had other plans which E> $DAYLIFE/WORK still have not allowed to pursue. E> Furthermore, there is nothing guaranteeing that you will not do the E> same, or have the same bugs in different fashion, i.e. VIMAGE/VNET?!. E> Just because you are doing work right now and are the only one behind E> these changes, AFAIK, does not mean its a long term partnership E> or that you will provide better SLA on this part. Agreed. I may go away from pf in future. But in this case I won't pretend that I'm still its maintainer and block other people willing to work. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120907085314.GC44854>