On Monday, 18 February 2002 at 23:04:03 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>> What a waste.. John has already done all this stuff already (using
>>> td_ucred instead of p_ucred) over the entire tree.
>> He didn't instrument Giant, and if you actually believe that one
>> massive commit is going to be more stable then the piecemeal safe-mode
>> commits I am making then you are smoking something. Or are you
>> expecting John to commit his patchset piecemeal as well and test
>> inbetween? If that is so, then he just wasted a whole lot time
>> managing all this junk in P4 because, frankly, it only took me a few
>> minutes to instrument the easier system calls. I spend far more
>> time testing.
> So, John's last few months of work is junk then, is it?
On Monday, 18 February 2002 at 23:22:28 -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>>> So, John's last few months of work is junk then, is it?
>>> Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I'll tell you what is junk... patches for things like getuid() sitting
>> in P4 (whether instrumented or not). That's junk.
>> I'll tell what is NOT junk. What isn't junk are things like John's more
>> complex patch to kern_descrip.c. There's real work involved there
>> that can be salvaged, and which can be committed to the -current
>> piecemeal if Giant is properly instrumented.
>> The biggest problem is that all of this stuff is sitting in P4 and none
>> of it belongs there.
> With all due respect, bullshit! The p4 tree exists only as an
> alternative to people having large uncommitted diffs sitting in
> checked out cvs trees.
> Mailing patches between people trying to work in parallel is a
> bigger waste of time. That is inherently single threaded.
While I don't agree with dillon's tone, I can understand his
frustration. There is a lack of communication in the SMP project. I
might have done more myself if I had been able to follow it without
being on IRC 24 hours a day. I suspect that this applies to other
people as well.
Note that dillon has suffered because of this. He has gone and done
what looks like being unnecessary work. When he tries to commit it,
he finds that somebody else has been working on it, and despite a
kernel summit only a couple of days ago, he didn't know about it.
I'm not picking on jhb here. This is the project's fault, not any
individual's. We need some kind of project management to coordinate
this effort, or the results will be seriously suboptimal. I would
certainly not like to see dillon go away because it's too difficult to
work with the project.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message