Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS-UP] BSD sort is the default sort in -CURRENT Message-ID: <1340810603.22476.YahooMailClassic@web113515.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEB1F20.8010704@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A=0A--- Mer 27/6/12, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> ha scritto:=0A...=0A= > =0A> Nope.=0A> =0A> > I would think only the maintainer of the package ha= s=0A> the=0A> > authority to make any request in the lines of being=0A> > b= ug-for-bug compatible=0A> =0A> You have a seriously wrong idea of "maintain= er." The=0A> community owns the software, it's up to the community=0A> to d= ecide how it should work.=0A=0AYou have a serious wrong idea of ownership. = No one really=0Aowns the code and only few people actually take the time=0A= to take care of it.=0A=0A> Historically we have looked at the maintainer as= the person=0A> who volunteers to take care of code, not the person who has= =0A> the exclusive lock on it.=0A> =0A=0AThe maintainer, in this context, d= oesn't have to be a committer=0Abut it has to be someone that spends time f= ixing bugs or=0Aenhancing the code. You might think that because you use th= e=0Acode and are used to certain bug that you depend on that you=0Asomehow = have a say on how it shall behave in the future but that=0Ais simply an ill= usion.=0A=0A=0A> > and in the case of GNU sort and=0A> > GNU grep they are = both unmaintained and replacements=0A> > are welcome.=0A> =0A> Actually bot= h are maintained, it's just that we don't want=0A> to import the new GNU ve= rsions.=0A=0AOur forks of such packages are unmaintained. I did the work=0A= (TM) of updating GNU sort and no one cared to commit it.=0AOleg, took as re= ference the latest upstream sort=0Aimplementation.=0A=0A> And yes, having B= SD versions of these core tools is a=0A> nice goal, but it's not one we sho= uld pursue for its own=0A> sake.=0A> =0A=0AHaving something that we can mai= ntain is a goal we should=0Apursue for it's own sake.=0A=0A> > Please let's= stop being an obstacle towards people=0A> > bringing real progress to Free= BSD!=0A> =0A> In the case of grep, there were a fairly large number of=0A> = people who agreed that a BSD grep with orders of magnitude=0A> worse perfor= mance than the previous version was not=0A> something we, as a project, wer= e willing to=0A> stomach. Sufficiently such that the default was switched= =0A> back.=0A> =0A=0APerformance was an issue and in general it was a good= =0Adecision that even the coder involved agreed upon. Once=0Athe issue is w= ithin acceptable limits, and there has been=0Aprogress on this as I underst= and, BSD grep will be=0Aback.=0A=0ADon't expect BSD grep to support somethi= ng different than=0Aposix behaviour though.=0A=0A> So can we please stop pr= etending that it's me who's the=0A> problem, and start looking at these thi= ngs rationally?=0A> =0A=0AHow about rationally pointing out your issues wit= h the new=0ABSD sort? Any regression that you want to report?=0A=0APedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340810603.22476.YahooMailClassic>