From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 18 08:53:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6FB16A4CE; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:53:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from neo.samodelkin.net (samodelkin.net [81.176.202.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E93E43D45; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:53:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fjoe@neo.samodelkin.net) Received: by neo.samodelkin.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B6381706A; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:52:37 +0700 (NOVST) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:52:37 +0700 From: Max Khon To: Ken Smith Message-ID: <20040618085237.GA19561@samodelkin.net> References: <200406170008.i5H08NDt085108@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040617173854.GJ61448@elvis.mu.org> <20040617182031.GA8170@samodelkin.net> <20040617184518.GB831@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20040617204813.GA10670@samodelkin.net> <20040617214827.GB6029@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040617214827.GB6029@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i cc: Max Khon cc: Alfred Perlstein cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys mbuf.h src/sys/kern uipc_mbuf.c uipc_syscalls.c src/usr.bin/netstat mbuf.c src/lib/libc/sys sendfile.2 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:53:19 -0000 Hi, Ken! On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 05:48:27PM -0400, Ken Smith wrote: > I may work with student programmers too much, but I'm afraid my imagination > is a bit better than yours in this case. :-( > > I don't defend it as being the right way to do things, but in cases where > the user is interested in "most of" the output of something they will often > take the approach of removing things they don't want instead of selecting > things they do want. This change would add an extra line to what the > next stage of processing would see if that approach is used. > > This particular change is a case of nit-picking. It's small, hard to > imagine how it could effect someone, etc. But even Bosko said more > caution 'next time' would be good, I'm just emphasizing why. To some > extent the output of programs has been an API ever since pipes were > invented. And unless I'm severely mistaken one of the things we have > tried to avoid is changing API's once a branch goes -STABLE. Yes, this is a case of nit-picking. And I think it might be better if people will stop mentoring other developers when they are not asked to (this is not directed to you). /fjoe