Vasiliy wrote: >> I guess, looking at the thread, that this was a response to me. >> Assuming I'm correct there, all I can say is that this is not a >> constructive response. > > Oh I am sorry. But after I write this all here and maintain it for > several monthes I guess I may expect constructive questions, which > based on information I provided here. > > Your questions are clearly shows that you did not read it at all - > otherwise you probably noticed that it is not about packages. Please > do not waste my time and everybody else, and read it first otherwise > how are you came up with this questions - just by reading last mail?! >
Actually, I had read pretty much all of it. But one of the problems with the way you've chosen to present this is that it's very different from our normal designs, where we present at least moderately-structured, self-contained documents; instead, you've chosen to use a serial email thread over a matter of months, and that is taxing for reviewers. When you stray from the well-trod path, you'll often find that reviewers are a bit lost as to how to review your work. And when you dismiss our questions as having already been answered, you're just creating a stalemate. > >> But just to humor myself, I searched for pkgadd in that thread, and >> found nothing that answered my question. Nor did I find >> diff-marked man > > Here you are actually admitting that you did not read it! Again > please read it not "search for pkgadd". How are you came up with this > questions without reading?! Sorry, but this is design review not a > casual chat. > As Jim also pointed out, your last mail in the thread talked about "pkgadd -m". Why would I not be able to search for pkgadd and successfully locate the details? Or are we playing "Hunt the Wumpus" here? I'm not trying to make your life difficult, these are legitimate questions that the project needs to be able to answer. >> pages, any other references to smpatch, or a specific discussion of >> the format of the manifest file (as in, what's legal in it and >> what's not). I could go on, but my response is that you've >> answered none of my omments. >> >> Dave > > Yes am not answering - I just whan you to read this first and came > prepared - not rolling out thousands of questions which based on > simple lack of reading. This questiona are clearified already. > No, they are not clarified to my satisfaction. If your reviewers can't understand you, then you've not explained it well enough. Forgive us, but we're not spending all day every day thinking about this work, so you have to meet us at least halfway. Finally, I'll just say this: berating me or any other person who chooses to provide you with design feedback won't accomplish anything in advancing your project. Solaris needs improvements here, we all agree. But if we the reviewers can't understand what you're doing, neither will the customers you're trying to help. And that's bad for all of us. Dave
