Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:17:18 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libypclnt Makefile Message-ID: <200204182117.g3ILHIx08776@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:22:13 %2B0200." <20020418192213.GW24261@daemon.ninth-circle.org> References: <20020418192213.GW24261@daemon.ninth-circle.org> <200204181620.g3IGKIu51885@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20020418192213.GW24261@daemon.ninth-circle.org> Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai writes: : -On [20020418 18:30], Dag-Erling Smorgrav (des@FreeBSD.org) wrote: : > Log: : > Back out previous commit, which was not at all approved by the maintainer : > of this code. I very much doubt that "the FreeBSD way" really means "make : > it as unreadable and unmaintable as possible", and I would like Makefile But your way is much more unreadable than david's. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it is a bad idea to commit while angry because it just makes you look back later. : > style (which is not currently documented anywhere except in the minds of : > bde and ru) to be discussed and agreed upon in the appropriate forum : > before any further commits of this kind happen. : : I am starting to get a very, very high kindergarten feeling when seeing : commits like these going back and forth. : : ``Fix it my way! No mine! No, mine! No! Mine!'' [Ad nauseum...] : : Positive thing: the request for agreeing (Why do I see Angels of Doom coming : for me?) on a single Makefile style. [Of course, which would've been better : as an email follow-up to the back out commit.] Yes. I think that the 1.8 style (david's) matches how the rest of the tree is done better than the 1.9 style (des's). I see no point to the sill backout and wish that Des and David could get along better. I'm a big fan for "make it match the rest of the tree" rather than a long discussion that talks about the ideals of this or that but in the end concludes that it would be too hard to do the whole tree so we should be consistant rather than "right" for somebody's arbitrary defintion of "right." Do we have to always change just for the sake of change? No. Looks like David has "tradition" on his side because there are almost no other examples in the tree of things being done des' way. Also, it has been pretty much universally agreed that we have no strong maintainers anymore, so standing on those grounds to back out the change, also without talking about it, is pretty flimsy at best. Warner 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?200204182117.g3ILHIx08776>