svn commit: r284198 - head/bin/ls

[Warner Losh]

> On Jun 13, 2015, at 12:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel at xcllnt.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 13, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 2015-06-13 at 11:38 -0400, David Chisnall wrote:
>>> On 13 Jun 2015, at 11:17, Ian Lepore <ian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> If you would have told me a year ago that you had a simple scheme that
>>>> could make 30 years of experience maintaining code for unix-like systems
>>>> completely worthless I would have been skeptical, but it seems we're
>>>> well on our way.
>>> 
>>> There is a lot of heckling and unhelpful hyperbole in this thread.  Reading the xo_emit format strings takes a little bit of getting used to, but the same is true of printf - it’s just that we’re already used to printf.  The structured parts (xo_open_container, xo_close_container and friends) are clear and descriptive.  The changes are fairly invasive, but the benefits are also very large for anyone who is wanting to automate administration of FreeBSD systems.
>>> 
>>> If you have suggestions for how the libxo APIs could be improved, then please let us know - Phil is very reception to suggestions but objections along the lines of ‘it’s not what I’m used to and changes sometimes break things so we should never have changes’ are not helpful.
>>> 
>> 
>> "This is a piece of crap that needs to be excised from the system and
>> done a different way" is useful input whether you agree with it or not.
> 
> Actually: no.
> 
> Not only does one not demonstrate an understanding of the problem
> by calling it “crap” and thus leaving the recipient to wonder whether
> it’s worth his or her time to even respond; the sentence also lack a
> concrete suggestion and, last but not least, is utter after this was
> all discussed on arch@, making it very much one of “too little, too
> late”.
> 
> So, not useful at all.

My complaints have been specific: libxo conversion broke things, but
didn’t fix them before going on to convert more things (which broke
more things). This suggests a lack of competent testing as a standard
operating procedure and pointing it out is helpful.

And specifically about ls: it was already way overloaded. Overloading
it further seemed to be unwise: a new program would have been
better since it is a thin interface to fts(3). I didn’t recall seeing a specific
discussion about ls, but the original thread in arch grew to be quite large
and maybe I missed something.

While I dislike libxo in general, I do understand why it is being done. I
see the use in general, and the benefits. I have nothing better to offer.
I object to the execution in small aspects.

Warner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/attachments/20150613/03d2c75d/attachment.sig>