Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:11:57 -0800
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
To:        Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
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 
Message-ID:  <50533.915959517@zippy.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:55:39 PST." <199901100855.AAA04475@dingo.cdrom.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50533.915959517>