From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 15 05:49:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C90416A4CE for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9035443D4C for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:49:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smckay@internode.on.net) Received: from dungeon.home (ppp190-27.lns1.bne1.internode.on.net [150.101.190.27])i2FDmuUK029644; Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:18:57 +1030 (CST) Received: from dungeon.home (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dungeon.home (8.12.8p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i2FDmuew007550; Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:48:56 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from mckay) Message-Id: <200403151348.i2FDmuew007550@dungeon.home> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) References: <200403140716.i2E7GDKa007204@dungeon.home> <20040315000944.GA93356@xor.obsecurity.org> <200403150134.i2F1Y5ew004366@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: 14:08:28 +0100" Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:48:56 +1000 From: Stephen McKay cc: chat@freebsd.org cc: Stephen McKay Subject: Doing it right (Was: HEADS UP! MAJOR change to FreeBSD/sparc64) X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:49:04 -0000 On Monday, 15th March 2004, Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= wrote: >Stephen McKay writes: >> On Monday, 15th March 2004, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> > No-one donated their time to do it that way. >> I don't think that's relevant. The question is whether it's the right way >> to do it or not. If what I've suggested is technically correct (and that's >> what I believe) then that's how it should be done. > >Armchair generals are a dime a dozen. Competent developers aren't >quite as easy to come by. True and true, but that's not the point. While you and Kris were defending your territory with this style of comment, Garance explained his reasoning, and it's technically sound. That wins the argument, as it should. I think it is a legitimate (and helpful) thing for developers to question the technical merits of changes even if they aren't personally contributing much code. It can't simply be the case that whoever has the time to commit the most code changes wins. Changes must be in the long term interests of the project. Hence questioning code changes can be as much a contribution as writing new code if it avoids a future problem. Stephen.