Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:29:21 -0800 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libfetch common.c Message-ID: <200210292029.MAA09451@windsor.research.att.com> References: <200210291702.JAA05652@windsor.research.att.com> <20021029195921.GC42760@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Why is FreeBSD's attitude one of all changes are totally justified and if >a change breaks something it is up to the one feeling the new breakage to >justify any further change? That's not my attutide. My attitude is that forward progress, even if bumpy, is better than backward progress. If I had your attitude, I would have backed out rev 1.27 of common.c, because that was what started my problem with firewalls, instead of writing the patch in PR bin/44123. I recognized that SSL was a useful addition to fetch, so worked to move it forward instead of backward. >We really need to change our attitude to one that a change that causes a >problem is backed out (ie, unbreaks world), and then the change is >reviewed to see what went wrong. I don't think an "insta-backout" is called for, especially if the code works in the majority of cases and only fails in a small number (like was the case here). If the issue can't be resolved reasonably in a small number of days, then a backout may be called for, but backing something out because you couldn't find someone to talk to about it at 3:00AM is ludicrous. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210292029.MAA09451>