On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote: >>> I might just be also interested to review/comment code, discuss >>> regressions, and architecture, for a change ;-) >>> Unfortunately, such threads rarely ever happen. Most of the time, the >>> only food provided is a really indigestible +5000/-3000 patch, where >>> all the thinking, architectural design and code has been done behind >>> closed door of a limited few committers, research lab or company. >> >> That's odd. What the src committers usually tell me, when I have my >> bugmeister-advocate hat on, is that they post patches and then no one >> comments until after they check them in, at which time they complain. >> This discourages them from going through this the next time. >> > exactly my point, huge patches are impossible to review. > >> You will also note that some of the large commits say "MFp4" or "MF: >> <projectname>". That means that either our Perforce repository, or >> SVN project/ directory, were used as staging areas. It's possible to >> subscribe to these email messages. (Exactly how is left as an exercise >> for the reader; the hour is getting late.) >> > that is indeed a good source for having a look at early-alpha-WIP stuff. > >> As for the research lab/company commits, I'm sure you'd complain equally >> if the code that these groups develop in-house and then release when it's >> in some kind of stable state, instead didn't get released at all. >> > I see company contributed code as ad-hoc solution to the company's > problem, not general solution for the whole FreeBSD userbase. To make > a comparison with Linux, it is just as if Google got all the Android > code merged in mainline as-is, without re-working anything. It did not > happen that way. Much of their code had (and still has) to be > re-designed, abstracted, and adapted to fit the general-purpose > mainline. > >> But, of course, I'm wasting my time trying to give you reasoned arguments >> about why FreeBSD does one thing or another. AFAICT you're only interested >> in spreading FUD about what we do, how we do it, and what we say about it >> before, during, and afterwards. > > is this FUD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/160992 ? > is this FUD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/156540 ? > is this FUD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/156799 ? > is this FUD: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-September/027400.html > ? > is this FUD: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-December/030076.html > ? > > answer to all the above: no, this is bugs, regressions, and mis-design > you folks introduced, not me. Don't blame me to point it out. > >> You seem to be obsessed by picking over >> semantics and finding shortcomings to be aggreived over. >> > Semantics and proper, independent, API are crucial. > > There is tons of ad-hoc code in FreeBSD which should be properly > generalized. The most silly example I can think about is > `time_after()', defined in <net80211/ieee80211_freebsd.h>. This has > _nothing_ to do specifically with IEEE802.11, it's about time > manipulation. Feel free to search the tree, there is tons of > potentially unsafe, open-coded version of this macros. Call it > nit-picking if you want, but when I write code, I want an API to use, > I'm fed up to always have to re-invent the wheel. > > Btw, I do not even speak about some functions in the kernel > re-implementing the exact same logic +10 times in a row, one after the > other, within the same function body... > > For the story, I've been hacking tonight in Linux... a pure pleasure, > real tough to get to, but really enjoyable. > >> Whatever patches or review you've contributed to date, to my mind, are >> like the last tiny little bits of onion that are left over after one peels >> off all the outer layers. There may be something to it, but the effort >> to get down to that point is so painful that it's not worth it. >> >> tl;dr: your drama outweighs your contributions. >> > I already commented on this. I'm no longer interested in getting my > stuff integrated in FreeBSD. I put it on github, eventually send > patches on MLs, then you do what you want with it, I no longer > particularly care. I know some patches are used around, that's enough. > I did my time fighting committers to fix their not-so-bugfree code and > won those battles, that's enough for me. >
What I'm completely missing is the reason why you're repeating "this is my last word" or "that's enough for me" or $THATSALLFOLKS_SENTENCE, but you continue adding some Gaussian noise on the MLs w/out a valid reason. If you enjoy other projects, go there. But please, don't piss off. > - Arnaud > > ps: I have a particular appreciation for this PR, a feature praised by > users, and no committer dares to care: > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/161553 ... silly. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Davide _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
