Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:41:10 -0800 From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem Message-ID: <200203072041.g27KfAs02175@mass.dis.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:03:22 PST." <200203072003.g27K3M368992@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trim your cc's. > I'm sorry, but simply not liking the idea of someone else doing a > particular optimization now verses later is not a good enough reason > to require that 40+ hours worth of work be thrown away when that > other person has stated, repeatedly, that he will support said code. Given that not optimising the code is consistent with the current SMPng approach, and given that you went and did this work unsolicited, the situation is unfortunate but inevitable. > So far not one person, not even you, has been able to explain why > the patch should not go in. It should not be committed because the current SMPng direction is establishment and implementation, not optimisation. Is that plain enough for you? You're doing the wrong work, as far as the general consensus goes. > I am angry because you and a number of others are not willing to take > the work at face value and instead insist on making ridiculous extremist > assumption into it and then using that opinion to justify not allowing > the patch to go in. You are angry because you've decided that you want to do something, and you don't want to be told you can't by someone else. Had you been reasonable about the situation, your code would probably have been committed and you could have spent the last week or more doing something else more interesting. Instead, you've tried to hold the Project to ransom for your ego. We don't tolerate this from anyone, no matter how skillful or useful they might otherwise be. This is a collaborative effort, and you need to collaborate on the group's terms, not your own. > I don't see how you can possibly tell me that I am not being a team > player when I am being told to throw the code away completely. If you were a team player, you would throw the code away. (Actually, I doubt that throwing the code away is the correct solution; my point here is simply that you've completely failed to understand what being part of a team is actually about.) > I can't fight your opinion of me, but you can't expect me to listen > to you if you can't justify it. You have already shown very clearly > that you aren't even interested in looking at the code, that you > don't care what it does, but you are against it anyway. That's because this is not about the code; it's about your behaviour. > This is not about being part of a team. You don't have to be forced > into using someone else's methodology to be part of a team. Being > part of a team means respecting other people's metholodogies and > it means compromising. I find this quite funny. You abuse John for not compromising, yet you're not willing to compromise on the issue that's really at hand here (and which has been highlighted repeatedly since the first day of dispute). You're asking for respect, but not returning it. This is about being part of a team, not having a fan club. > This IS about team work, but you are barking up the wrong tree if you > think I'm the one who's not being a team player here. Do we see you subordinating your personal goals to those of the team? > Say what? Who said anything about me not wanting to discuss API changes? > That's all I've been TRYING to do for the last three fucking weeks! No, you have been arguing to get your code committed, as-is, philosophically unchanged. > Are you discussing API changes? No, you are basically just bashing me. > That's all that you people have been doing for three fucking weeks. This is a consequence of your behaviour. Had you been more reasonable, you'd have had less bashing. > Now who is being unreasonable? Why do you believe that it is absolutely > necessary that I be prevented from committing the work? Because allowing you to commit it at this stage would represent giving in to your attempt to hold the Project to ransom. Had you moderated your tone and worked within the dictates of the situation, you'd probably have found a path that would have allowed your code to be committed with little effort. Unfortunately, you appear not to have learned from your previous mistakes, and (again) took an approach which deliberately antagonises your co-developers. You've successfully manufactured a situation from which it is almost impossible to proceed forward; any benefit to the Project that might be derived from your code has already been more than offset by time wasted in response to your behaviour, and actually giving your your head without seeing due process served is simply not consistent with our intention that development be managed by consensus. Despite your repeated attempts to transfer blame elsewhere, you are ultimately the root cause of your current dilemma, and likewise you are the only person that can resolve it. Such a resolution is going to require a change in approach from you; what you want is eminently achievable, you just have to work out that tricky "working with other people" thing a bit more. = Mike -- To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt 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?200203072041.g27KfAs02175>