From owner-cvs-all Sat Nov 20 1:38:29 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E942514C41; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:38:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22687; Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:38:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:38:23 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199911200938.BAA22687@kithrup.com> To: cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org Subject: PHK: "Shut up and go away quietly" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk That is what a message PHK sent to me boils down to. (I have shown this message to several other people, so it's not just _me_ who interpreted it that way.) At least one other person has gotten an almost-identical message from PHK. When I responded with my usual speed, with as terse and polite a response as I could ("I don't think so"), he made not-so-veiled threats implying that if I did not leave gracefully, I would be forced to leave. This started when I requested that he send future changes to procfs by me first; this request is because I have picked up active development of procfs (having about 500 lines of changes, in three different versions) and he had just checked in a change that violated the basic security paradigm procfs uses. (The fact that it's violated in the roughly the same way elsewhere in the kernel is another matter.) I had a lot more to say, but it boils down to: I never left, and I am not going to. But I do want to know why PHK is allowed to ignore complaints and make threats. I'm not the first person to ask that question. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message