Above the law? (was: You gotta be kidding .... Re: cvs commit: src/sys/miscfs/specfs spec_vnops.c)

[Linus Caldwell]

On Sunday, 16 January 2005 at 11:46:35 -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Mike Smith wrote:
>>
>>>     Instead, the appropriate way is to turn off user level blockdev
>>>     access entirely.  This is the conclusion that was made weeks ago
>>>     when you first started your rampage to blow away block devices.  A
>>>     time table was also proposed at that time and I committed a sysctl
>>>     to implement it (which you attempted to remove two weeks ago, which
>>>     led to blowup #2).
>>
>> That's what this basically does; it just shortcuts the the old block
>> device entries to the character device to avoid violating POLA, so that
>> people can experiment with life on a system with nothing that behaves
>> like a "block device".
>
>     Poul has completely ignored the proposal, time table, sysctl, and the
>     several major figures that supported it and has gone ahead with his own
>     plans, refusing to work with or accept the advise of anyone else on the
>     matter.  I believe Poul's action to be entirely improper and, frankly,
>     if it were up to me I'd pull both his core status and his commit privs
>     for this third direct infraction.

[Although this is formally a reply to Matt, I'm addressing the
committers community here]

I agree in nearly every point.  We have several issues here:

1.  It's by no means clear that this commit was correct.  While it's
    true that -CURRENT is the right place to test new ideas, this
    matter was discussed and we had not come to a conclusion.  As I
    pointed out earlier, I thought that both the timing and the manner
    of this commit were inappropriate in view of the incomplete
    discussion of the matter.

2.  Didn't we have a committers policy which was supposed to apply to
    core team members as well, even those bearing axes?  We've
    discussed this matter dozens of times before.  When Matt Dillon
    did this, they removed his commit privileges (correctly IMO).
    When phk does it, people do nothing.

I discussed this matter with a number of people at the Con, including
phk, who explained that it was absolutely necessary if 4.0 should come
out on time.  OK, that's an opinion; nobody else has stated this.  But
even if it proves to be true, I don't think it's a justification.
>From what I can see, Matt has shown a much better understanding of the
material than phk has done.  I respect his judgement, and I now also
respect his restraint.  But if phk goes on ignoring his peers, one of
two things is going to happen:

1.  He'll have his core and commit bits revoked.
2.  He'll piss off a lot of good people who will go elsewhere.

I think either of these alternatives would be a great pity.  The
alternative is simple:

  Poul-Henning, please respect the rules.

Linus

---------------------------------------------
This e-mail was sent using a CentralPets WebMail account
Get yours at: http://mail.centralpets.com