Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 14:52:55 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.1 rm.c Message-ID: <p06110402bd874b62cf56@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <xzpbrfixx4x.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200410041126.i94BQ273055417@repoman.freebsd.org> <20041004.095311.33209863.imp@bsdimp.com> <xzpbrfixx4x.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 6:31 PM +0200 10/4/04, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >"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. There were some ration arguments. Few of the rational arguments were for making this change. I'd say back this change out. I would rather that we do nothing than we allow one committer to unilaterally decide when *he* thinks something is "a bikeshed", and therefore preempt the discussion from other developers. >Furthermore, there is nothing in it that hasn't already been said >over a year ago on the Austin Group mailing list Did the Austin group include my suggestion? Or did you even notice my suggestion? Or did you notice that several people liked my suggestion, except that it required more work than this simple change? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06110402bd874b62cf56>