Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 00:16:57 -0700 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org> Cc: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com>, David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/ncurses/include curses.h.in src/contrib/ncurses/ncurses/trace lib_trace.c Message-ID: <20000524001656.A45062@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <392B78EF.8EDD4674@gorean.org>; from DougB@gorean.org on Tue, May 23, 2000 at 11:38:39PM -0700 References: <20000523153625.A30373@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005231644430.49900-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com> <20000523223533.A26457@freebsd.org> <392B78EF.8EDD4674@gorean.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 11:38:39PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > You're arguing on both sides of this. The fact remains that you did not > take the more desirable action of contacting the ncurses author, or even > our own mailing lists before taking your action. My point was that the The fact remains and what? As temporary solution my action is far more than perfect. As complete solution it should be backed out in favour of official fix. In case ncurses maintainer did not respond, my temp. solution could stay forever. In case he respond, it can be replaced by official one. In all cases we got (1) immediate bug fixing and (2) nothing stop us to change it in future to something more acceptable by style. In few words: don't fear changes, they can be replaced or backed out when needed. Fear lack of changes. > situation had already existed for a long time, and would not be > seriously damaged by waiting another day or two. Even though the In case you are security admin with such point of view, your system is already cracked :-) In general please speak up here about yourself only, i.e. "not seriously damage YOU". Due to bug in our ld this ncurses bug is especially dangerous because invisible. It already dabage /bin/sh, /usr/bin/ftp and bash2, how many unknown damages you need to count? > situation was known in certain circles, the "call to arms" to fix it had > not been sounded yet. There was no lack of action, because no action had > yet been called for. I call for action, and I do this action because I call. All this based on understanding of naming conventions, visibility scope and related standards. If you object this change, you MUST have theoretical argumens and not a silly "this not damage me for a long time"... > fact he fixed it already. The fact remains, you took a fairly drastic > action without any discussion, and as it turns out, without cause. What > we're all hoping is that this kind of misunderstanding can be avoided in > the future. 1) What is so drastic in my action? Changes in, changes (backed) out. I even don't break a single application! 2) Where is discussion? I don't see yet any theoretical argument. This case is pretty obvious. This change is very minor and clear for anybody who understand naming conventions. 3) If you don't feel a cause it not means that the cause didn't exists from standards point of view. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> http://nagual.pp.ru/~ache/ 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?20000524001656.A45062>