Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:59:17 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: mjacob@feral.com, Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>, "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Causing known breakage (was: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_conf.c subr_disk.c) Message-ID: <20011028205917.C88146@monorchid.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <32629.1004262910@critter.freebsd.dk>; from phk@critter.freebsd.dk on Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 10:55:10AM %2B0100 References: <20011028200321.B88146@monorchid.lemis.com> <32629.1004262910@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 28 October 2001 at 10:55:10 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20011028200321.B88146@monorchid.lemis.com>, Greg Lehey writes: > >>> Because it is not my task to fix all broken drivers. >> >> Correct. So what did you mean with the statement "That should be more >> than sufficient warning for anyone."? > > I think getting a printf from the kernel telling you that your > driver made a mistake for almost a year should be enough to spur > a committer into action, no ? You're arguing against the evidence. >> I can't be bothered looking for a rule that says you shouldn't >> commit anything which will knowingly cause breakage, but if it's >> not in the book, it should be. First ensure that cause of the >> breakage gets fixed, or fix it yourself. > > BZZZZZT! Wrong! -- but thanks for playing. Wrong answer. Please start playing. > We never had such a rule, and infrastructre changes would be close > to impossible to perform if we did. That's a claim you continue to make. It makes life (or at least your arguments) easier for you, but I disagree, and I'm not the only one. > Proof: Look at these messages from LINT: > WARNING: COMPAT_SVR4 is broken and usage is, until fixed, not recommended > #warning "The eni driver is broken and is not compiled with LINT" > #warning "The fore pci driver is broken and is not compiled with LINT" > #warning "The lmc driver is broken and is not compiled with LINT" > > This basically says that SCO/SVID compatibility, one entire ATM stack > and a T1/E1 driver have been shot. Who did it? > This was done because somebody couldn't be bothered (according to > you) or werent able to fix these drivers to use newbus or whatever > it was that caused them to be disabled them. Have you evidence that it wasn't done because somebody made changes without taking these issues into account? Currently this looks like an argument for my point of view. If we carry on like this, everything except the core functionality will be broken. > Please don't invent new rules just because you are on core and you > happen to have a grudge against somebody. Nothing I said here was with my core hat on, as nobody here will doubt, yourself included. You're trying to distract attention from the issues, which is rather below the belt. You know I don't have a grudge against you. But, as should be obvious from this exchange, I object to *anybody* who breaks things simply because he wants to introduce something new and he's too lazy to fix all the issues which need to be solved first. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20011028205917.C88146>