Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:38:45 -0400
From:      Tim Vanderhoek <>
To:        Nate Williams <>
Cc:        Alfred Perlstein <>, "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: securelevel and ipfw zero
Message-ID:  <19990728193845.D318@mad>
In-Reply-To: <>; from Nate Williams on Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:40:19PM -0600
References:  <> <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 02:40:19PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> Or is this Linux, where we don't give a rip and whatever the current
> patch does to the rest of the tree is fine, since the more code we have
> the better?

Nate, you know damn well that's not true.  You're complaining about
three lines in a large patch.  Further, those three lines of the patch
fix excessively long (+80 char) lines.  Yes, you're right that those
are non-functional changes and that ideally non-functional changes are
placed in separate commits.  You've also been around long enough to
know that you're right and to be able to say so with an air of
authority without a sense of insecurity, ending any debate about
it after a mere 2 or 3 curt exchanges.

Further, your communication skills should be sufficiently advanced to
have noticed what appears (to me, at least) to have been the subtle
miscommunication that occurred between message-id
<> and message-id
<> which
lead to the stupid place you two are now sitting in.

This is my .signature which gets appended to the end of my messages.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>