cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha support.s src/sys/i386/i386
swtch.s src/sys/kern kern_shutdown.c src/sys/sys systm.h
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Tue Jan 20 13:33:21 PST 2004
In message <200401201600.19855.jhb at FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes:
>It is not an improvement in all cases and most of the people in this thread
>have opposed this. The only response you got on the mailing list to your
>post was a "please do not commit" from Bruce and you went ahead and committed
>anyway. Do all of our opinions just not count when the Almighty Poul-Henning
>has a patch he wants to commit?
No, Bruce' was the only _public_ response I got.
I got several favourable email responses to my review request and
a couple from persons on IRC, (I remember that JeffR was one of
those) and even a couple of verbal ones from people I talked to
a the last usergroup meeting in Copenhagen.
There is absolutely no doubt hat the "vote-count" was distinctly
postive when I committed since the only "no" I had received was
And I belive (but havn't bothered to keep close enough count that
I can actually check this) that even counting the two or three
"nays" we've seen now I still belive the yes-side comes out ahead
at this point in time.
So either I didn't get the memo which said that that adding a printf
call would require me to submit a project plan, cost/benefit analyzis
and go through the full one week review period for major changes
to the kernel architecture or somebody is seriously overreacting
I suggest you and everybody else calm down and let dust settle for
a couple of days, maybe other people should have a chance to say
their opinion. If there is a clear concensus that this is bad
(maybe somebody neutral should take a count ?), then we'll back it
PS: Your email seems awfully biased against me.
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the cvs-src