cvs commit: src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_da.c

[Poul-Henning Kamp]

In message <0a2201c30128$30e43e50$52557f42 at errno.com>, "Sam Leffler" writes:
>> Second, I have discussed this particular change with ken@,
>> who as you correctly point out is the maintainer, and he
>> agreed that the function was unused.
>>
>
>Then why wasn't ken@ referenced in your commit msg?

Because I forgot.  (See my .sig)

>> So I really don't know why or what compelled you to attack me here,
>> whatever it was: please try to control it better in the future.
>
>Given your past history of summarily axing and/or modifying code w/o
>consulting folks I can see why someone might respond as Nate did.

I could maybe be persuaded that somebody might respond.

I certainly cannot see why one would respond "as Nate did".

At the very least I'd expect them to check the basic facts first.

And as I have understood it, core@ would expect them to keep a
a significantly less confrontational style than Nate did.

But maybe that's just me...

Poul-Henning

-- 
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.