From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Dec  2 10:34:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA21453
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:34:18 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA21446
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:34:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com)
Received: (from sef@localhost)
	by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id KAA06151;
	Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:34:13 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from sef)
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:34:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>
Message-Id: <199712021834.KAA06151@kithrup.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
Reply-To: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_aio.c 
In-Reply-To: <199712021706.JAA28517.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com>
References: Your message of "Mon, 01 Dec 1997 15:55:30 PST."
             <199712012355.PAA11311@kithrup.com> 
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
>I made a couple of comments.  Gosh, didn't know I was required to prove
>myself to you, though.  But, instead, you just ignored it -- and now people
>are asking why there was no discussion about it.
>
>Who reviewed the changes?  Who submitted them?  What PR did they fix?  None
>of those things was mentioned in the commit message.

This is not meant as an attack, really ;).

I do think the change was wrong and should not be there.  That is why I
sent out a message saying I objected to it.

But you decided, rather than to find out what specific complaints I had
(which I alluded to in my message, but did not fully explain), to ignore it.

Other people apparantly had concerns abotu it as well, although they didn't
say anything until now.

I *am* unhappy with the fact that you (phk) decided to simply ignore the
message.  And I still believe that, unless you have some compelling reasons
for it (and nothing you've stated *yet* is a compelling reason), that the
changes should be backed out.

This is similar to Terry's proposed filesystem chagnes -- they are, for the
most part, nice and useful -- but without any other code to use them, they
are largely gratuitious, invasive, and needless.  Only Terry can't check his
code in directly. :)