From owner-freebsd-arch Thu May 2 15:24:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C39F37B425 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3223 invoked from network); 2 May 2002 22:23:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail14.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 2 May 2002 22:23:43 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g42MNgF09221; Thu, 2 May 2002 18:23:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4331.1020375723@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:23:36 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: savcore dump names? Cc: Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 02-May-2002 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20020502143906.C40128@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: >>On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:15:57PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> David O'Brien wrote: >>> > On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 02:02:29PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >>> > > So what happened to the request that savecore(8) go back to using >>> > > sensible, intuitive names instead of brain-damaged ones? >>> > >>> > The committer that took that feature away isn't interested in seeing >>> > things through to the end. >>> > >>> > Another reason we need an owner of each thing in the tree. >>> >>> So that if they get hit by a bus, we're screwed for all time? >> >>No Terry, a new "owner" would pop up. > > Obviously you theory either contradicts the ad-hominen attack above > or fails to hold water altogether because I said clearly from the > start that as far as savecore was concerned, people should consider > me run over by a bus. So it is acceptable to come in and break existing functionality because you don't feel like finishing the job? I mean, come on, you had to do the work to change the code to make it break existing functionality. It would have been _less_ work to have left the code that respected minfree, etc. and kept the filenames the same as it is. IMO, it is unacceptable to come in and break stuff and then say it's not your problem to fix it. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message