Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:24:13 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <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 Message-ID: <20020418.172413.69379313.imp@village.org> In-Reply-To: <xzphem88v9w.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <200204181620.g3IGKIu51885@freefall.freebsd.org> <200204182117.g3ILHIx08776@harmony.village.org> <xzphem88v9w.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <xzphem88v9w.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020418.172413.69379313.imp>