Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 16:09:40 +0000 From: "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@anacreon.physics.wisc.edu> Cc: "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Devin Teske <dteske@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r256343 - in head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall: . scripts Message-ID: <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC60911@LTCFISWMSGMB21.FNFIS.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310130255190.33798@anacreon.physics.wisc.edu> References: <201310112041.r9BKfZeT002056@svn.freebsd.org> <5258F9B3.7030101@freebsd.org> <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC5B547@LTCFISWMSGMB21.FNFIS.com> <86txgmr0oh.fsf@nine.des.no> <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC5B8F1@LTCFISWMSGMB21.FNFIS.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310130255190.33798@anacreon.physics.wisc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 13, 2013, at 1:14 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Sat, 12 Oct 2013, Teske, Devin wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 12, 2013, at 8:03 AM, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: >>=20 >>> "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com> writes: >>>> The code to replace the use of camcontrol is a a *very* complex parsing >>>> of the geom XML configuration data stashed in sysctl. jmg@ started the >>>> ball rolling on that. >>>=20 >>> You realize there is a text version as well? >>>=20 >>>> Yes. Which has been discussed at-length, you didn't need to put a >>>> sandbag on my back (publicly no less; thanks for that). >>>=20 >>> Umm, I think Nathan was pretty civil. You're the one who's turning this >>> into a catfight. >>>=20 >>=20 >> Reflecting upon the thread to see if you're _right_... >>=20 >> 1. He stated there were still some issues. [definitely civil] >> 2. "I am surprised you committed it especially to stable/10, >> before those issues were resolved." [civil? or inflammatory?] >> 3. "I'm also not sure if people can review their own patches." [misunder= standing] >> 4. "Installer regressions are very easy to introduce and very problematic >> when created." [statements like that invariably lead people to believe h= e views >> the commit as a regression -- I explained in a follow-up that it is not = a regression] >> 5. "Real review for installer changes is thus especially important this = late in the >> release cycle." [I read this invariably as he views that the commit did = not go >> through "Real review", but again... there is no regression and it's pure= ly value- >> add] >> 6. "Do you have any plans to fix these issues in the very near future?" = [definitely civil] >>=20 >> What got me ralled up was #'s 2, 4, and 5. >=20 > Hi Devin -- >=20 > I'm sorry you felt I was attacking you. It is what it is. > I was, as I said, very glad to see someone work on ZFS support in the ins= taller. The patch seems to have only minor issues, most of which were ident= ified earlier. You will note that I am asking you to fix them, but not for = a backout, and for you (and > everyone else) to ask for review for future non-trivial installer patches, > just as you would for changes to any discrete unit of the operating syste= m. Asking is the first step. You flat out attacked, imho. I looked out over my castle walls and saw/see you at the gate in full armor= . I'm not going to let someone like that inside my courtyard. > With respect to the patch itself, there are a few other architectural thi= ngs > that need to be fixed: the man page needs updating, Yes indeed, it does. > you did not update the > part of the installer that does unattended installations, etc. >=20 Ought to be addressed for 10.0-BETA2 ... indeed I cannot disagree. So that I don't forget, I'll put them here: Need to document: ZFSBOOT_POOL_NAME=3Dzroot ZFSBOOT_BEROOT_NAME=3Dbootenv ZFSBOOT_BOOTFS_NAME=3Ddefault ZFSBOOT_VDEV_TYPE=3Dstripe ZFSBOOT_GNOP_4K_FORCE_ALIGN=3D1 ZFSBOOT_GELI_ENCRYPTION=3D ZFSBOOT_GELI_POOL_NAME=3Dbootpool ZFSBOOT_GELI_BOOT_SIZE=3D2g ZFSBOOT_GELI_KEY_FILE=3D/boot/encryption.key ZFSBOOT_DISKS=3D ZFSBOOT_PARTITION_SCHEME=3DGPT ZFSBOOT_SWAP_SIZE=3D2g Notice how all the variables specific to the `zfsboot' script start with Z= FSBOOT_ As well as these two (they are not necessarily specific to the zfsboot scri= pt): nonInteractive=3D1 zfsInteractive=3D1 > The end comment was not to say that this patch *is* a regression -- it cl= early isn't since it adds a new feature and doesn't touch existing ones -- = but a general comment that the installer is sensitive to them. I've been working on the FreeBSD installer since 2005. How long have you been working on it? (full disclosure: that's not a back-handed comment... I really want to know= ... I get the *distinct* impression that you think I'm some junior-level appren= tice on the matter considering the amount of times you have felt the need to tell me "the installer is sensitive" -- you may have had your commit bit longer,= but that hardly means that you've put more work into the problem; the elitist attitude needs to go) > Unlike most parts of the system, it is run only rarely (developers updati= ng their systems from SVN don't reinstall them from media) and is simultane= ously the first thing and, until recently, the *only* thing, new users see = when they first download FreeBSD. You think I don't know this? > So bugs can easily not be found but, when they are found, totally cripple= all other features of the operating system since it can't be installed for= anything else to even be used. Please don't make me take the gloves off. > Similar things can be true for things that are not quite regressions (new= features that don't work as advertised, typos in menus) since the chance w= e notice them is very low while the chance new users do is high. >=20 Who anointed you king of the installer world? In my mind, the corporate enterprise is *still* putting bounties out on the= bugs you introduced by regressing us from sysinstall to bsdinstall. I for one can't believe you= introduced bsdinstall in the state that it was in and further can't believe that it's still in th= e state that it is in for 10.0. It's egregious, but perhaps worse is that you're standing in the way of pro= gress. > This is why the review requirements, and testing times, for installer cha= nges are typically quite high. This is especially true in the run-up to a r= elease. Again with rhetorhic... you imply it wasn't reviewed nor tested. I think you're angry because you weren't part of the process. --=20 Devin _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidentia= l. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message an= d all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any ma= nner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware= that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and revie= w by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC60911>