Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 19:23:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: dyson@freefall.freebsd.org (John Dyson) Cc: terry@lambert.org, alexandr@louie.udel.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help!!!! Message-ID: <199512030223.TAA07020@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199512022342.PAA15965@freefall.freebsd.org> from "John Dyson" at Dec 2, 95 03:42:46 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > My problem with this whole thing is that the "async 'fixes'" appear > > to be related to the problem (who knows? It might be tickling a > > dormant compiler bug, etc.), and are really not rationally justified > > except as a method of putting some bogus Linux benchmarks to rest. > > Also, the async code does run faster for massive file create/delete > operations. It DOES have a real purpose. (Filesystem restores run > much much much faster as an very practical example.) I agree. This is, however, an atypical event. I can see justification for preinstallation of FreeBSD on machines from a vendor, however. > > They were (and remain) reactive to what I believe to be a non-problem, > > at best, and they are circumstantially related to a large number of > > problems that didn't exist prior to their commit date, at worst. > > Why then even make an association (you, representing an "expert" opinion), > when the cause/effect is not clear -- in fact *very* unclear. All I ask > is that if you make such statements, please make sure that you are not > causing undue pressure or work in a fruitless direction. If and when > I describe what is happening -- it will be accurate. If you make such > an association, I would hope that you would do the same!!! I was noting the association that others had made after the problem was first noted. It was not a value judgment. If it were, I would have baldly made the statement and left it up to others to disprove, which would have been difficult, since I rarely make such judgements without evidence to back them in case someone does attempt to disprove it. It makes it impossible for them to refute it sole on the basis of its source. In American English the word "apparently" does not imply a causal relationship, it implies a circumstantial one (at least according to Noah Webster). If the people with the problem back their code to before the changes (which is as handy a mechanism of "tagging" the tree before and after the problem was introduced, whatever the problem is, as is available right now without a firmer grasp of what the problem is), then the problem will simply go away. The only pressure intended (if it can even be called that) is to cause the persons complaining to realize that the problem has been noted and offer them a workaround. If anything, this would *prevent* pressure on developers by causing the complaintants to be less insistent of an immediate fix. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512030223.TAA07020>