Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 02:08:26 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, dyson@iquest.net, Amancio Hasty <ahasty@mindspring.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "David E. Cross" <crossd@cs.rpi.edu>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, schimken@cs.rpi.edu Subject: Re: 3.2-stable, panic #12 Message-ID: <59440.928487306@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:14:00 BST." <199906040814.JAA00520@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm not saying he should have backed out his changes, I'm saying that > they shouldn't have been made - that's why removing the commit bit > was the right move. Let me just explain something here which I think may either make Matt happier or less so, depending on his priorities. :) Matt's commit bit was NOT removed due to the technical nature or quality of his work. Yes, there were many concerns expressed about the pace of his changes and the review process for (which, I actually must concur with Matt, is largely ineffective in some respects, so much so for many things that I no longer even bother to solicit review for them since I *know* that nobody is even going to give it the most minimal attempt), but this was not the "breaking issue" that caused us to take a big step backward for a rethink. It was an issue of personality clashes and Matt's personal differences with a few people in core that inevitably led to the decision. There are a lot of people in and outside of core who are frankly a royal pain in the ass to deal with (we put the "fun" back in dysfunctional) and, come the revolution, they'll probably be first up against the wall and shot. Nonetheless, this is the hand we've been dealt and we have to work together and make the best of it no matter what the various personality issues are since the alternative is a much worse blow-up and all the dire consequences which come from that (let's all not forget how OpenBSD first started, shall we?). Matt feels that we're overly tolerant and/or thick-skinned when it comes to our own shortcomings, and perhaps he's right in principle, but as a *practical* matter I think we're doing no more or less than what we have to just in order to work together over the long term. We don't have to always like it, we just have to make it work and make it work in such a way that most of us will still be here in another year's time. The analogy I like to use is that of family - you can choose your friends, but you don't get to choose your family and that's what makes large family get-togethers the fun-filled affairs that they so often are. Nonetheless, for a lot of good reasons, it's worth trying to make it work anyway and not simply get the shotgun out of the closet to blast cousin Earl into next week, even though it would be so deeply satisfying to do so. Matt's failure was that he gave in to that temptation and discharged buckshot into more than a few rear-ends, making it necessary to cross him off the guest list for the next christmas dinner. :-) I think (HOPE) we've all learned from the experience, however, and we can see how our next family picnic (USENIX) turns out. As usual, conducting such discussions in person is far more productive than attempting to discuss potentially sensitive matters over email. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59440.928487306>