Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:14:40 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2nd call for reviews and tests: buf->bio patch Message-ID: <20000404081440.E21619@daemon.ninth-circle.org> In-Reply-To: <200004032134.OAA61603@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:34:01PM -0700 References: <22448.954783492@critter.freebsd.dk> <200004031751.KAA60287@apollo.backplane.com> <20000404030757.A53939@ewok.creative.net.au> <200004032134.OAA61603@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-On [20000404 04:02], Matthew Dillon (dillon@apollo.backplane.com) wrote: >: >:* His timing did suck >:* He's now doing the right thing, at least, instead of committing the >: second patchset without submitting them for peer review > > I disagree. What Poul is doing is committing stuff first, then trying > to get validation after the fact (and in a rather demanding way I might > add) when people complain. He is willing to dig his feet in and spend > weeks arguing over the issue until people get tired enough to either > accept a compromise, or allow his commits to stay in the tree verbatim. > Furthermore, whenever his commit breaks something, it is generally > someone else who has to take up the ball and fix it. I may break the > tree occassionally, but I damn well stay on the front lines and fix > any problems ASAP rather then force other people to fix them for me. In all honesty, this seems to go more about the person Poul-Henning, then his code. Besides, CURRENT does allow for the tree to be broken. I guess Bleeding Edge lost its meaning within the FreeBSD ranks. > This is the third time this has happened. Every time it happens it > creates a huge disruption and every time it happens we end up with > a compromise that does absolute *nothing* to prevent a reoccurance of > the problem. Ehm. Not as if your VM stuff wasn't causing disruption. Needed, granted, but disruptive as well. And ucd-snmp has been broken quite some time (still is?) due to the work. And I know of a lot of people who actively use it. > The commit should not have happened in the first place. My position is > fairly simple: I am getting seriously tired of seeing this repetition > occur every few months, and I would like something *REAL* to be done about > it which will prevent the repetition from occuring in the future. I agree that Poul-Henning could be more subtle at times, but I also understand his motives for doing so. CURRENT is about progress. If we don't start something, we have no chance to every modify it. Every change in a DEVELOPMENT tree thus far has been met by anguish, shouting and calling for the thing to remain, even when the change is for the better or made things more clear and sane. If people want stability, go 3-STABLE or 4-STABLE. 5 is were we break stuff and try to get everything back together in more sane and justified ways. This is not PRODUCTION level stuff, it could one day be, but at the moment it is not. That doesn't mean of course that peer review isn't necessary, in fact its good, becase it will catch pitfalls you probably wouldn't have thought of. But in all honesty, I see ego's getting more and more in the way of code. Saddening. -- Jeroen Ruigrok vd Werven/Asmodai asmodai@[wxs.nl|bart.nl|freebsd.org] Documentation nutter/C-rated Coder BSD: Technical excellence at its best The BSD Programmer's Documentation Project <http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai>; Veni, Vidi, Vici... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000404081440.E21619>