svn commit: r309344 - head/lib/libutil

[Ian Lepore]

On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 09:33 -0800, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
> > 
> > On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:32:07AM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 19:07 -0800, Ngie Cooper wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Really?? I wish you hadn't added me to this list.. I don't in
> > > > any way
> > > > endorse the way that you went about dealing with this
> > > > disagreement.
> > > Really?  Well then feel free to ADD my name to the list of people
> > > who
> > > found that comment, and the subsequent non-response to the
> > > complaints
> > > about it, completely inappropriate.  
> > I expressed an opinion on an IRC channel that I found the comment
> > offensive.
> > 
> > But I would rather my permission had been asked ahead of time
> > before
> > having that comment attached to a public commit log.  I think this
> > is
> > part of the point that ngie is trying to make.
> > 
> > I'm well-known for my wish that core took a more active, public,
> > stance
> > on such matters, but I think here that two wrongs may not have made
> > a
> > right.
> Yes.
> 
> And more importantly, the new comment doesn’t tell me *why* I
> shouldn’t use FD_CLOEXEC. The owness is still on the reader to figure
> out why using `fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, FD_CLOEXEC)` is wrong.
> 
> All the new commit does is makes the commit that des@ made more
> palatable and benign to readers.

And how is that a bad thing, compared to the prior situation?  Insult
has been removed and information has been added.  You complain that the
information that was added was incomplete.  Well, there is one person
who could fix that, and he has apparently chosen not to.  So perhaps
your ongoing complaint should be directed accordingly.

-- Ian