Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 18:31:58 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.1 rm.c Message-ID: <xzpbrfixx4x.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:53:11 -0600 (MDT)") References: <200410041126.i94BQ273055417@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > Please back this out. There's an ungoing discussion and it is far > from clear that this is a sane idea. This is really bad committed > etiquette. Take a deep breath and a couple of days off, then re-read the so- called "ongoing discussion". It is a textbook example of the bikeshed phenomenon, with hardly a single rational argument. Furthermore, there is nothing in it that hasn't already been said over a year ago on the Austin Group mailing list (except for "Unix is *supposed* to be hard!"), and the Austin Group concluded that the change was correct, though outside the scope of a Technical Corrigendum. In a couple of days, another poor soul will propose another trivial patch on a mailing list, and we'll all move on to the next bikeshed and forget we ever argued over this, and it will never come up again because *nobody will ever be negatively affected by this patch*. And in a couple of weeks or months, maybe Giorgios will have gathered enough courage to actually dare submit a patch for review again; or maybe he'll just stick to the doc tree, where (almost) nobody ever argues over anything. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpbrfixx4x.fsf>