Joerg Schilling wrote: > Joseph Kowalski <Joseph.Kowalski at sun.com> wrote: > > Joseph, I know you as an experienced person, but your current mail is really > derailed. > > >> Joerg needs to grow-up. I'm completely exausted by the "If you would let me >> do "X", then every wart in the system which does "X" must be purged from >> the system". He is so persecuted. >> > > I hope that you will grow up..... > At almost 52, I doubt I'll change that much. :-) > Do you believe that an arc case discussion is the right place to handle flame > wars? > I must admit, this was a mistake. I glanced at the distribution and it appeared to be short list of names. I rather missed that "PSARC-ext" was in that list.
Then again, perhaps its best to keep this in the open. The only thing I said I regret is the statement that we (Sun) have our own "Jeorg's". I apologize for that. > The problem is that people asked unrelated and redundant questions as a result > of missing related skills. > So, I expect you are an expert of sfm or zfs? Nobody can be an expert on everything. It is the responsibility of the submitter to provide sufficient information (yes, I understand that you were not actually the submitter). PSARC is a little different than most special interest communities. Those communities are localized experts and they should reach consensus before PSARC. PSARC's major contribution is to try to to make the pieces "play nice" with each other. Check the "requirements" to be an ARC member - its is "broad knowledge" not "specialized expert". > If people are too lazy to inform themself about the task of a piece of > software, > how it is used and where the problems are, we will again end up in the same > kind > of ARC discussion. This ARC case was full of questions that every sysadmin > who > ever wrote a remote archive using ufsdump, GNU tar, star, ... could answer. > Its interesting that 2 of the 3 things you mention are not native Solaris things. I used to be quite an expert on DEC/VAX archiving techniques. In your view, it seems to be that we all should be as well versed in all archiving technology, star, pax, VAX, IBM mainframes... Again, it is the responsibility of submitter to make clear the issues. > The ARC mailing list is not the right forum for such questions. Some of the > questions could even be seen as FUD as they did contain underlying incorrect > claims. This will bring us nowhere. The case could be finished if only those > people did send mail that know about the rmt related problems. > > What happened in the discussion for this case gives a really bad light on > some > of the people (those who asked the redundant and unrelated questions). I hope > this will not be repeated anytime soon. > > To people who miss the background of a case, everything looks like a > problem.... > I hope that in future only those people ask questions who know enough about > the background of the case already. I like to see constructive criticism > instead of destructive criticism. > > J?rg > I am somewhat sympathetic to your issue about re-reviewing the rmt part of 480. In most cases we get used to having submitters work with us, rather than stand on protocol, but you aren't the first to take that stand. Don's statements are also correct about this case replacing 480. If the submitter had said that it extends 480, your view would have been absolutely correct, but that's not what was said. Then again, this is all splitting hairs - the important thing is to have the right thing happen for Solaris. What I was not at all sympathetic to was what I said before: > Joerg needs to grow-up. I'm completely exausted by the "If you would > let me > do "X", then every wart in the system which does "X" must be purged from > the system". He is so persecuted. It was a good thing that you pointed out ast. That made many of us re-examine what had happen there. Its not OK to make assertions that because the arc wasn't completely consistent, that you had the right to try and force changes to ast (or for us to just accept your view). Read your own messages. How many times did you try to get "your way" by attacking others rather than justifying your proposals on their own merit? Because my positing was perhaps "flaming", I'd like to reiterate one thing I said: > There is a tension between between using native Solaris interfaces and > "portability" between platforms. We need to resolve that. Its not a > black/white choice. This discussion needs to include, as full partners, the Sun and non-Sun members of the wider OpenSolaris community. Clearly the existing rules for Solaris (as in pre-OpenSolaris, and in that context, they made a lot of sense) need to be revisited. Its a different world now. - jek3
