From owner-cvs-all Sun Oct 28 3:42: 2 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B2937B405; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 03:41:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9SBfHS33625; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:41:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Greg Lehey Cc: mjacob@feral.com, Jonathan Lemon , "Andrey A. Chernov" , 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) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:59:17 +1030." <20011028205917.C88146@monorchid.lemis.com> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:41:17 +0100 Message-ID: <33623.1004269277@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20011028205917.C88146@monorchid.lemis.com>, Greg Lehey writes: >> 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. "We are many who think that..." >> 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? Can't remember, seem to recall it was related to newbus/PCI/interrupt or something in that area. If you want to implement this new rule of yours, I suggest you do so chronologically rather than to pick on me. >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. Actually I think it is a neat thing. If nobody fixes these drivers before 5.0-R we can obviously remove them then because they are clearly NWOV[*] material in that case. >> 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. As somebody who so often ends up in the business-end of your claims and rule-making, it takes more than that to convince me. Poul-Henning [*] "Not Wanted On Voyage", mark put on luggage which could be put in the hold on trans-oceanic ships. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message