cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/usr.bin/doscmd AsyncIO.c AsyncIO.h Makefile Makefile.dos PROBLEMS ParseBuffer.c README README.booting_dos bios.c callback.c callback.h cmos.c com.h config.c

John Baldwin jhb at
Wed Mar 24 14:49:06 PST 2004

On Wednesday 24 March 2004 05:35 pm, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > > I think most people heard "tjr assented to waiting" as the end of the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > remember emails can get re-orderred..
> >
> > This is where a good threaded mail reader helps. :)  Seriously though,
> > is there a strong, well-reasoned objection to the action by des, or can
> > we let this one go? As I said, my opinion is biased, but I don't see any
> > harm here on the tech side, nor do I see any bad faith on des' part.
> I don't think that, now that it's done, we should bring it back, but I
> do think that he got a different impression about the conversation that
> I got.

Yes.  I honestly don't care enough about doscmd(8) to want any changes from 
the current situation, but my reading of the thread was that the consensus 
was, if anything, to wait until 6.0.  Upon re-reading the thread, I do see 
that while DES did say he would provide patches to do what he did, he never 
sent a mail saying 'Ok, here are the patches I'm going to commit on foo day' 
whereas Tim did sent out a RFC before doing actual action.  Given the amount 
of pushback that Tim's request received, it seems to me it would have been 
good form to have at least posted something to the effect of 'Ok, I've got 
the patches do this now and am going to do so.'

John Baldwin <jhb at>  <><
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =

More information about the cvs-all mailing list