From owner-cvs-all Thu Apr 18 16:25: 6 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED4437B425; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g3INOdH52008; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:24:39 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@village.org) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3INOax09664; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:24:36 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@village.org) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:24:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20020418.172413.69379313.imp@village.org> To: des@ofug.org Cc: asmodai@wxs.nl, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libypclnt Makefile From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <200204181620.g3IGKIu51885@freefall.freebsd.org> <200204182117.g3ILHIx08776@harmony.village.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: : David claims that listing multiple files on a single line does not : adversely affect the readability of the Makefile (which is debatable) : nor of diffs that add or remove files (which is not). I switched to : the style I currently use (which is based on the style used in the : ports tree) after one too many merge conflicts caused by listing : multiple files on a single line, mainly in /sys/modules, where the : dominant style is now to lists each subdirectory or file on a separate : line. David apparently objected to my use of +=, which I can live : without (as he would have found out if he had sought my opinion before : committing). Readable or not is in the eye of the beholder, the style that David used was more consistant with the rest of the tree. If we want to change this, then that's a discussion that should happen on arch@ with people signing up to do the big grunt work of changing the whole tree (or at the very least documenting it well). Merge conflicts may be a compelling enough reason to change from our established style. It may not. The project hasn't had a discussion about this, so your asthetic concerns are interesting, but not relevant to the narrow technical issue. It doesn't look like the rest of FreeBSD, which has traditionally been more important. A consistant source tree is our hobgoblin... I disagree with your characterization that the Makefile's style rules are only in bde's and ru's heads. I have a fairly clear set of rules in my mind, and many others have indicated that 1.8 smells more like FreeBSD than 1.9. That indicates to me that there's at least a general level of consensus on what the general style of the Makefiles in the tree are. So on the whole, I'd say David was right on the purely Techncial issues. However, there is more to the project than the purely technical. The people issues are different... : > 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. : : Do you deny that libypclnt is a work in progress? Deny? I'll answer the question "Did you know that libypclnt is a work in progress?" which is less accusitory and confrontational. The tone of this message is somewhat confrontational, and I don't like that one bit. I'll try to read past it this time, but please do try to watch the tone in the future. No. I didn't know it was a work in progress. I thought it had been around for a very long time, but I was confusing it with something else that Bill Paul had done two lifetimes ago. Looking at the cvs logs back to rev 1.1, I see that it is a few days old only. It looks like David made the change on the 15th, then immediately backed it out (less than 10 minutes later) pending feedback, presumably from you. It wasn't until 3 days later that he committed his cleanup. His commit message is also in the same sort of inflamitory tone I complained about above, so I can see why you were upset by it. It may be the right thing to do from a technical level, but it appears to have violated at least two proceedures that we have traditionally followed: WIP and politeness. : Do you deny that the rule for patches to WIPs is "submit them to : whoever is currently working on it"? That has been the rule. He claims to have submitted it (and the cvs log appears to bear this out) days before committing it. Given how recently things were committed 3 days may be a little quick. So it looks like from the people side of things that you might be a little more correct than David, but the inflamitory tone by both sides is not acceptible. We've had a growing number of incidents in the past few months where people did the right thing, but in the wrong way. We're not a project where the ends justifies the means. The means often pisses people off and sours them to the project. Everybody needs to remember that how we do things is often as important as what we do. And an inflamitory tone rarely is acceptable. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message