Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:33:11 -0700 From: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys Message-ID: <CACYV=-EaGiUkjnoAH%2BJLgyqBWYx7Mw=r-ADEwfr0MQ8VsT7iJw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <55FA69BD.10507@selasky.org> References: <201509141052.t8EAqRWf008293@repo.freebsd.org> <20150916220559.GS1023@FreeBSD.org> <55FA69BD.10507@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote: > On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> >> Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper >> review and discussion? > > > Adding a new function is not touching code. > > --HPS > I tried to stay away from this conversation as much as I could, partly because I haven't touched this code in a couple of years, partly because others have already expressed concerns. Sorry if I sound a little bit harsh here but this is not your playground. As somebody who spent a lot of time working on callout in the past I'm completely opposed to introducing new KPI without proper review. This has several problems: 1) It's a dead KPI, i.e. it has no consumers, which is a fairly bad engineering practice. 2) Your commit message didn't explain what (if any) is the use case for this. 3) You didn't discuss it with anybody else. Review timeout is not an excuse. If you want somebody to review this code ping -current or in the worst case developers@. Writing interfaces is hard, most of the times when you introduce a new one you may miss something useful, that's why we have reviews. It happened in the past when me and mav@ introduced the new callout precision API and we had to change all the functions in the middle of development because of external feedback. Not even talking about the possibility of us changing our mind and removing this KPI after 11 is shipped, while third-party vendors started using it and very unhappily have to #ifdef their drivers, or even worse drop FreeBSD support. tl;dr: I personally don't think that your past/records have some influence on this. You introduced a new KPI, you took this decision lightly, and completely ignored complaints from others. This is a very bad attitude problem, and that's so much worse than all the technical problems this commit brings. -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACYV=-EaGiUkjnoAH%2BJLgyqBWYx7Mw=r-ADEwfr0MQ8VsT7iJw>