svn commit: r331728 - in stable/11/etc: . rc.d

[Warner Losh]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 09:33 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 06:20 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Author: araujo
> > > > > Date: Thu Mar 29 04:51:07 2018
> > > > > New Revision: 331728
> > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331728
> > > > >
> > > > > Log:
> > > > > ? MFC r329817:
> > > > I must of missed this when it landed in ^/head
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ? The firewall_type is ignored if not set in rc.conf or
> rc.conf.local,
> > > > > ? after r190575 there is an option to call rc.firewall with the
> firewall_type
> > > > > ? passed in as an argument.
> > > > > ??
> > > > > ? Submitted by: David P. Discher <dpd at dpdtech.com>
> > > > > ? Sponsored by: iXsystems Inc.
> > > > > ? Differential Revision:        https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14286
> > > > No one accepted it :-(.
> > > >
> > > That's not a blocker for committing; plenty of time elapsed to allow
> > > anyone to reject the change. IMO, even a flat-out rejection isn't a
> > > blocker to committing except for things like random or crypto code that
> > > require formal approval (but I'd certainly think hard about committing
> > > if people rejected the change, and put some effort into finding a
> > > compromise first).
> > It seems that the Phabricator review system is somewhat disfunctional
> > in that actual review is only happening in some cases.  Some people
> > have even stated they flat out hate it.  Others say that it is the
> > way to go.
> >
>
> Which is exactly why phab reviews are optional. There are some of us
> who've said that if they become mandatory, we're done working on
> freebsd. Personally, I put things up for review if I have some doubts
> about my choices, or if it's in an area of the system I'm not very
> familiar with. If nobody wants to review the changes within a week or
> two, I commit and move on.
>

phab is there to make things better. When there's changes worth reviewing,
I use phab. When there's trivial changes or even boring minor ones, there's
no benefit from the review. It adds process without adding value, which is
lame. Especially for a project that's a volunteer project where people's
time may be limited and you need to be as efficient as possible with it.
Doing things that add value, sure. Doing things to tick a box, forget it.

Warner