Re: git: 1f27d54496be - main - net/amneziawg-kmod, net/amneziawg-kmod: new ports

On 7/26/25 11:13, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 26.07.2025 22:05, Kyle Evans wrote:
> 
>> Please back this out.  There's still ongoing debate in the review and we already have two committers on this that are quite capable of committing it on their own when it's ready, but this was premature.  Snatching a port out of an active review is kind of poor form, a heads-up would have been appreciated.
> 
> I committed this on direct request of the submitter and after discussion
> that took place recently in Russian-speaking FreeBSD Telegram community.
> 

Please help me understand here: they asked you to commit it, and so you 
did so without questioning *any* of the context surrounding it?  Our job 
is to facilitate, not to blindly follow requests without stopping to 
understand why the situation is as it is.

The correct move here was to pop into the review and figure out how you 
can help move it forward, not to take action and stomp all over the 
concerns being expressed.

> There is large demand on working free speach and anti-censorship tools
> in this community these days and this demand is more important and needed
> than outsider may imagine.
> 

I can understand and appreciate that, but that's absolutely no excuse to 
blatantly violate social norms.  I would have thought you've been around 
the project long enough to understand that that isn't how we as a 
project should be collaborating with each other. =\

> Feel free to update ports as you wish.
> 

I will be backing this and the subsequent update out, then.  Please work 
with the submitter to fix the complaints that stopped it from being 
committed in the first place, and let's try to work together rather than 
in a silo.

Obviously nothing stops them from using if_wg as the basis and that's 
all fine, but the upstream WireGuard project has already expressed their 
concern and have been completely ignored.  Just re-brand the damn thing 
as Amnezia and an Amnezia tunnel, fix the docs to avoid calling it 
WireGuard.  We'll get it into review and commit it, then then let's 
perhaps chat on the list (as already requested) about how we could 
integrate other ideas that can improve WireGuard as a whole.

Thanks,

Kyle Evans