Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:43:56 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dg@root.com Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, jb@cimlogic.com.au, jkh@time.cdrom.com, jbryant@unix.tfs.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: merging win95 and nt filesystem changes into msdosfs Message-ID: <199802110843.BAA21978@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199802110758.XAA15322@implode.root.com> from "David Greenman" at Feb 10, 98 11:58:21 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> There are far more instances where Kirk McKusick and other people > >> in-the-know have objected to the direction that Terry wants to take > >> us than there are in favor. > > > >I've talked to Kirk about many of the changes since I've been in the > >Bay Area, and you are misquoting him here. > > I have neither quoted nor paraphrased Kirk or anyone else in my last > message. What is your semantic definition for "Kirk McKusick and other people in-the-know have objected to the direction that Terry wants to take us"? I'll be happy to use that definition istead to describe what you said. > Those of us who have looked at making this change > realize that this is riddled with potential problems, however, especially > when code such as ufs_rename has to be rewritten. I don't even trust > Kirk (the author) to do this, so why would I trust you? Who do you trust to do it? Are they working on it? > On the other hand, there is general disagreement on changing the > symantics of advisory locking. Well, I've stated my reasons for it. So long as it keeps working, there's really no good reason not to, and a lot of good reasons to. I've explained one of them in great gory detail in my recent posting about the unionfs changes that have been proposed. > >I'll be happy to explain anything you have questions about. > > This is inconsistent with what you have said in the past which was > escentially that you had neither the time nor the willingness to explain > the changes you were proposing and that we should just take it on > faith that what you want to do is good. This is false. This seems to be is a paraphrase of one of Jordans previous complaints. In effect, you are complaining that because I can't persuade you, in a sufficiently small amount of words that you are willing to read them, that something is good, then it must not be good. I admit that I have fallen down on providing architecture documents to Nate; however, I have provided him with some information, and the main complaint was that it was too low level and assumed too much knowledge. I have to assume *some* knowledge. > >occur. The only rationale against these has been "we fear change, > >specifically in the form of divergence". Now that that's blown > >out, so long as it's possible to revert such changes if they are seen > >to have a detrimental effect, I don't see why there's a problem. > > Backing out changes after some amount of time has gone by (and thus the > code has been modified by other people for other reasons) is not a trivial > undertaking. If you are right, and my changes are bad, it will be immediately apparent (in that they will fail to operate). If they operate, you are no worse off than before, and you have someone actively working on an area of the system that has languished. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802110843.BAA21978>