ps enhencements (posix syntax, and more)

[Cyrille Lefevre]

"Garance A Drosihn" <drosih at rpi.edu> wrote:
> At 2:31 AM +0200 6/7/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> >Garance A Drosihn <drosih at rpi.edu> wrote:
> >>At 12:03 PM +0200 4/27/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> >>>here is a description of the last PR#64803 updates :
> >>
> >>The latest info I see in PR #65803 does not match some
> >>things that you describe in the rest of this message.
> >>The following comments are based on what I have looked
> >>at in the updates in the PR.  I have not had much sleep,
> >>so this message may be a little confusing in parts.
> >>
> >>>*** the kernel part has been reworked and validated in
> >>>      the last patch set.   ...OpenBSD -k ...
> >>
> >>I haven't looked at what you have for -k, but I did try
> >>what you had for KERN_PROC_SESSION and it didn't seem to
> >  >work.
> 
> Please do not take my private messages and reply to them in
> public.  If I thought we had to hash out every little detail
> in public, I would have sent my messages to the mailing list...

sorry, I though it was an error to not replying to all.

> >  > I probably should, but I fear that before I have the
> >  > time to read & understand & test & install those
> >  > updates, you will just have rewritten them all over
> >  > again.  This is a bit frustrating...
> >
> >I didn't understand why you want to reinvent the wheel ?
> 
> There is a key point that you are overlooking.  I was already
> working on my own large updates to `ps' before you sent any
> messages to any mailing lists.  I was discussing those publicly
> on the mailing lists.  The major changes that I committed in
> April was just the "safe part" of the larger work I was doing.
> It was the parts of my larger change that I felt were safe to
> MFC into 4.x-stable.  At the time I was pushing those in to
> 5.x-current so I could have them adequately tested in time
> to MFC them before 4.10-release shipped.  I did manage to do
> that.  I then hit end-of-semester here at RPI, at which point
> I have zero free time.  None.
> 
> The remaining changes were things that I doubt I will ever
> MFC (just because there are too many differences between `ps'
> in 4.x vs 5.x).  Right near the end of the public testing
> of that first set of changes, you showed up with your update,
> wishing that someone would pick up the update.  You were
> probably not on the mailing list where my earlier discussion
> had been going on (freebsd-standards), so you missed that I
> was already working on `ps'.
> 
> I am not "reinventing the wheel" after you wrote your update.
> I am not doing that any more (or any less) than you were.  We
> just both happened to start working on this at about the same
> time.  Things like this just happen from time-to-time...

ok, I did not understand you already does some work which conflict
w/ my work. It was not really clear you already had done most your
work. I understand you had implemented some work and though about
some other work and you that you want to implement them your way.
well, it's not exactly what I want to say, but a sort of.

> I am continuing with updates I was already working on before
> you presented your huge update.  You were quite enthusiastic
> about your changes, so initially I put my work on hold and
> asked you various issues I saw in your updates.  I sent multiple
> messages.  I got no answers.  After a few weeks of waiting, I

as said before, it was too bad I didn't receive all your messages
which probably point the fact that the PR was missing some pieces.
right now, I'll check that when I sent something, it reach its
destination.

> finally had some free time again so I decided to go back to the
> work I was already doing.  I did that because I tried various
> parts of your update and THEY DID NOT WORK.  Thus, it is much
> *LESS* work for me to continue with the updates that I already
> understood (because I am writing them...), than to figure out
> what all 4,000 lines of your update was doing, and all the
> side-effects of that update.

hope that you'll be happy w/ the last all in one patches I sent.
PS : I had to sent two times the userlang part ! I still didn't
understand why some of my emails goes to the limbs :(

> My updates do not address everything that your massive update
> addresses, but then your massive update does not cover some
> of the things I have in the pipelines.  No matter how we slice
> it, it will take work to combine the two streams.  If I am the
> one doing the commits, then I need to understand the code I am
> committing.  The biggest mistakes I have made have happened
> when I committed someone else's update because "it looks OK",
> without really understanding what it did.  I do not intend to
> make that mistake again.  It will take me a fair amount of
> time to understand all that is done by your update -- and I am
> not going to commit any of it until I am sure that I understand
> it.  If my name is on the commit, then I will be the person
> responsible for it.

ok, take your time :)
if you need some explaination, don't hesitate to ask me.

> I am still interested in looking over your changes, so I will
> check the PR.  Right now I am actually focused on newsyslog,
> but I'll look at these when I get back to looking at `ps'.

so, we where not on the same wavelength and please accept my
apologies regarding my comments.

Cyrille Lefevre.
-- 
home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre at laposte.net