From owner-cvs-all Sun Jan 10 01:16:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA22163 for cvs-all-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:16:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA22158 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:16:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA50537; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:11:58 -0800 (PST) To: Mike Smith cc: sthaug@nethelp.no, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, des@flood.ping.uio.no, darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:55:39 PST." <199901100855.AAA04475@dingo.cdrom.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:11:57 -0800 Message-ID: <50533.915959517@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > Poul is attempting to manipulate core's legendary slothfulness to > legitmise his actions; you're welcome to decide for yourself how > reprehensible you feel this is. > > What we are most in need of is a mechanism whereby we can convince > developers to continue to operate within the bounds of the > currently-functional consensus system. At the moment, we have a couple > of rogues outside that are causing us some serious grief. Well, I think that the situation has escallated to its current heights due more to the accelerated time line involved than anything else. Just as a fast moving wave will become a tsunami when it hits a rising beach if it's moving quickly enough, I have to take some measure of responsibility for the situation by encouraging DES to just go ahead with his changes before it was truly clear that the naysayers had their chance to weigh in with counter-arguments. phk has asserted his maintainer's priviledge on the code but I'll argue that this should be rejected on the grounds that many people have been working on the sysctl mechanism since it was introduced in 4.4 and phk is hardly the only or even most active maintainer of the code in question. Privilege denied, but let's still give everyone a chance to weigh in with their opinions on whether a simple, short string is adequate or if indeed the I18N and other issues make embedding this information into the kernel truly impractical. Since DES's changes can also be selectively disabled, I would not object to seeing his code come back as-is if it turns out it's just phk vs des and more people weighing in behind the change than arguing against it. But let's give ourselves a couple of days, without any further changes to the source tree, to reach that decision, OK? I think haste got us into this and it's not going to get us back out. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message