From owner-freebsd-arch Fri May 3 1: 5:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wemm.org (12-232-135-171.client.attbi.com [12.232.135.171]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79A037B400; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:05:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4385u409130; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:05:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602B73810; Fri, 3 May 2002 01:05:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: John Baldwin , Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: savcore dump names? In-Reply-To: <11645.1020410832@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 01:05:56 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020503080556.602B73810@overcee.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message , John Baldwin writes: > > >So it is acceptable to come in and break existing functionality because > >you don't feel like finishing the job? I mean, come on, you had to do > >the work to change the code to make it break existing functionality. > >It would have been _less_ work to have left the code that respected > >minfree, etc. and kept the filenames the same as it is. > > > >IMO, it is unacceptable to come in and break stuff and then say it's > >not your problem to fix it. > > Sometimes you have to break the eggs to make an omelette. You know, that makes me feel even better about the gutting of the phy stuff. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message