On Thursday 08 January 2004 13:05, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2004-01-08 17:29 +, Doug Rabson wrote:
[...]
The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
1. A replacement for cvsup. Probably quite doable using svnadmin
dump and load.
2. Support for
: Agreed. Like I've said, the main problem I see is complexity. It
: wouldn't matter as much if there were 5-10 people with deep knowledge of
: SMPng, but with 1 or 2 hackers working on it, the chance that everything
: will be ever fixed is quite small.
:
:IMO, the easiest way to start the
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Agreed. Like I've said, the main problem I see is complexity. It
: wouldn't matter as much if there were 5-10 people with deep knowledge of
: SMPng, but with 1 or 2 hackers working on it, the chance that everything
: will be ever fixed is
Well, I know that it's legal to omit one's own copyright claim, but
for some organization to lay claim to copyrights owned by you or me
seems very wrong. It's a violation of BSD-type licenses and a
violation of the concept of attribution that is behind the licenses.
A legal entity has made
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote:
Peter Schuller wrote:
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed
on the project front page:
--- Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
There is a comparison here:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion,
but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this
At 10:00 AM + 1/11/04, Doug Rabson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and
port vs base location). The type of license is an input to
the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD preferable ...
Subversion has a
On Jan 11, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 10:00 AM + 1/11/04, Doug Rabson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and
port vs base location). The type of license is an input to
the decision as to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 09:05:50AM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
I think we must wait until a 1.0 version is available.
SVN is meant to be a replacement to CVS. The projects repository is using
perforce which happens to be a good tool, so moving it to svn is probably not a
step forward
At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
There is a comparison here:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion,
but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be
something that should be done gradually.. for
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 7:27 PM -0800 1/9/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
Hi;
There is a comparison here:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion,
but we have to wait for a 1.0 Release, and this would be
something that should
I haven't been following this too closely, so forgive me if this has
been mentioned. Does Subversion support any type of transaction based
committing?
Yes. Commits are atomic.
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front
page:
At 9:05 AM -0800 1/10/04, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
--- Garance A Drosihn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a pretty major test! Could we perhaps pick off
something smaller? The projects repository, for
instance? (or is that still tied to the base-system?)
SVN is meant to be a replacement to
Peter Schuller wrote:
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed on the project front
page:
http://subversion.tigris.org/
A significant one of which is the fact that it's available under a
BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't have to rely on
more GPLed code.
At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote:
Peter Schuller wrote:
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed
on the project front page:
http://subversion.tigris.org/
A significant one of which is the fact that it's available
under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 05:01:13PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 9:35 PM + 1/10/04, Andrew Boothman wrote:
Peter Schuller wrote:
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed
on the project front page:
http://subversion.tigris.org/
A significant one of which is the fact
Peter Jeremy wrote:
Most of the noteworthy features of subversion are listed
on the project front page:
http://subversion.tigris.org/
A significant one of which is the fact that it's available
under a BSD-style license. Meaning that the project wouldn't
have to rely on more GPLed code.
I wonder
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-08 16:36:30 -0800:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
That might be technically true, but the precise semantics of
(semi-)freeze aren't as widely known as you seem to think.
E. g. yesterday or today I received an email
On 2004.01.08 21:39:07 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: and the Copyright page has that plus a similar claim for
: FreeBSD, Inc. (For 2004, even.)
That should be changed.
To? I have noticed FreeBSD,
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:29:34 +
Doug Rabson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
[...]
2. Support for $FreeBSD$ - user-specified keywords are not supported
and won't be until after svn-1.0 by the looks of things.
subversion
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ryan Sommers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Something like this might also jeopardize the
: project's not for profit status.
The project is not a legally incorporated entity at this time, and
never has been in the past.
And yet the Legal page carries a
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
:
: And yet the Legal page carries a claim of copyright for The FreeBSD
: Project
It is a psudonymous work by The FreeBSD Project.
Are you saying that The
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-09 15:32:53 +0300:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:29:34 +
Doug Rabson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
[...]
2. Support for $FreeBSD$ - user-specified keywords are not supported
and won't be
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: :
: : And yet the Legal page carries a claim of copyright for
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon L. Nielsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 2004.01.08 21:39:07 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
:
: : and the Copyright page has that plus a similar claim for
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
I've been re-evaluating the current subversion over the last couple of
weeks and its holding up pretty well so far. It still misses the
repeated merge thing that p4 does so well but in practice, merging
does seem to be a lot easier than with CVS due to
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of your
Narvi wrote:
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of your message.
It is not clear that
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Matt Freitag wrote:
Narvi wrote:
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of
Sorry to jump in the conversation so late, and without reading the
entire thread to date, but has anyone considered tla as an scm, it
handles merging and branching much more sanely than cvs or svn, not to
mention the benefits of distributed development and the dumb server
model. and there are
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whatever. I've consulted lawyers on this who assure me that it is
legal. You've admitted to not knowing US Copyright law and are aguing
emotion, which is why I didn't reply to the rest of your message.
You obviously don't want to discuss this, and
Quoting Miguel Mendez [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
interdisciplinary people left in the project. The SMP interactions
that John mentions are not trivial... they would challenge *ME* and
regardless of what people think about my social mores I think most
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Doug Rabson wrote:
DR I've been re-evaluating the current subversion over the last couple of
DR weeks and its holding up pretty well so far. It still misses the
DR repeated merge thing that p4 does so well but in practice, merging does
DR seem to be a lot easier than with CVS
On 2004-01-09 11:38 -0600, Sean Farley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I admit to having not tried it, but I wonder how well OpenCM
(http://www.opencm.org/) would compare. I think it would have a smaller
footprint than Subversion.
I have prepared a port of OpenCM, but didn't have time to test it,
Hi;
There is a comparison here:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
I think there are compelling reasons to try subversion, but we have to wait for
a 1.0 Release, and this would be something that should be done gradually.. for
example moving the ports tree first.
cheers,
Matthew Dillon wrote:
interdisciplinary people left in the project. The SMP interactions
that John mentions are not trivial... they would challenge *ME* and
regardless of what people think about my social mores I think most
people would agree that I am a pretty good programmer.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open
for whopping 28 days.
: See? I didn't mention DragonFly even once! Ooops, I didn't mention
: DFly twice. oops! Well, I didn't mention it more then twice anyway.
:
:Makes me wonder if some of the solutions proposed by DragonFly could be
:ported to FreeBSD, but I doubt it will be done, since it's more or
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:23:30PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
I would add that I've been running almost exclusively on 5.x
for over a year now (except for one machine which I have not
rebooted in over a year...). There have been some *very*
painful transitions at various times, but once
Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open
for whopping 28 days.
I strongly suspect
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:45:25PM -0600, Ryan Sommers wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 20:29, Nick Rogness wrote:
1) Allow for paid development for a specific bug/feature
- Setup some program that allows users like myself to pay for a
developers time to fix a specific bug.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-08 18:33:40 +1100:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
Limitations of CVS don't exactly help either. The fact that you need
direct access to the repository to be able to copy a tree with
history (repocopy) as opposed to
At 07:47 PM 1/6/2004, Avleen Vig wrote:
Advocacy is NOT a race
Yes, it is. Linux is where it is today because it grabbed more
buzz, sooner, than BSD.
--Brett Glass
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
months (2003/09/07-today), ports tree has been completely open
for whopping 28
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:09:49AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
months (2003/09/07-today), ports
On Thursday 08 January 2004 07:57 am, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
Now, I'm by no means advocating everybody should get ssh login on
[dnp]cvs.freebsd.org; I just can't wait for the day when FreeBSD
uses a SCM that handles tags and branches efficiently (so that
people can freely
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 20:19, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
[1] has core@ considered subversion (devel/subversion)?
Everyone has their eyes wide open looking for a revision control
alternative, but last time it was discussed in detail (a few months
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Ryan Sommers wrote:
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 20:29, Nick Rogness wrote:
1) Allow for paid development for a specific bug/feature
- Setup some program that allows users like myself to pay for a
developers time to fix a specific bug. The company I work for
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more involved, but out of the last four
months (2003/09/07-today),
In a message written on Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:35:47AM -0700, Nick Rogness wrote:
Perhaps this could be done through a company that contracts just
FreeBSD developers. I know of no such company. I guess I will
have to be satisfied with -jobs for now.
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ryan Sommers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I really don't like the idea of making this a policy, or even some
: official part of the project.
It has been going on for years. I've been paid to fix FreeBSD bugs by
my employer and as an independent contractor
On 2004-01-08 17:29 +, Doug Rabson wrote:
[...]
The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
1. A replacement for cvsup. Probably quite doable using svnadmin
dump and load.
2. Support for $FreeBSD$ - user-specified keywords are not supported
and won't
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:05, Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2004-01-08 17:29 +, Doug Rabson wrote:
[...]
The three main showstoppers for moving FreeBSD to subversion would be:
1. A replacement for cvsup. Probably quite doable using svnadmin
dump and load.
2. Support for
At 2:27 AM -0800 2004/01/08, Kris Kennaway wrote:
It's certainly true that we're lacking in build hardware for some
non-i386 platforms (particularly sparc64), and this made it pretty
tricky to build packages for 5.2 on those architectures (a full
sparc64 build takes at least a month). I've
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 06:36:42PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-07 23:17:31 -0800:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:08:38PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
The ports freeze seems to last too long with recent releses. Or
maybe it's just I've gotten more
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary W. Swearingen) writes:
: M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Ryan Sommers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : Something like this might also jeopardize the
: : project's not for profit status.
:
: The project is not a
Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If 5.3, when it arrives, is genuinely production ready, trust me, the
drinks are on me - I will do my absolute best to get to the next
BSDcon and get everybody drunk on an expense account. If it isn't,
well, I'll just have to whisper I told you so
I wrote:
Mark has mailed me off-list. His tone isn't great. I probably deserve
the Fuck off. Go away. I'l deal with that seperately. :-)
A few things to say about this:
1. I was not quoting Mark verbatim here. He didn't tell me to go away in
the same paragraph. :-)
2. It was a private
fwiw, the original mail was mine, written almost a year ago.
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 11:15:27 +0100
From: Shaun Jurrens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dillon@'s commit bit: I object
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While I still stand by my original thoughts, I didn't reproduce this from
any faked e-mail
At 5:35 PM + 2004/01/06, Paul Robinson wrote:
The cleverness of the troll was:
1. It was written by somebody who at the least had read these lists
for at least the last two years
Maybe. It would be easy enough to skim the archives.
2. It aired the real frustrations of those of us
Wes Peters said:
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
On Monday 05 January 2004 11:14 am, Brett Glass wrote:
I'd like to see a more open and inclusive form of governance for
FreeBSD. The current system of governance has, as its underlying
assumption, that the most
The only thing any of the committers cares about is what they think.
Got a problem? Submit a patch. Don't like the way things are done?
Submit a patch. Don't like how such-and-such a util works? Submit a
patch.
Please suggest an alternative, given that almost all the labor
is volunteer labor.
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:52:37PM +, Colin Percival wrote:
At 20:31 06/01/2004, Mark Linimon wrote:
There are hundreds of PRs still to be processed that do have
patches -- in fact, on most days the backlog is getting bigger,
not smaller.
Speaking of which... if there's one thing
At 11:28 PM + 2004/01/06, Paul Robinson wrote:
Accepted. It came from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and therefore can
only represent my own opinion.
In the future, may I suggest that you make this sort of statement
more clear at the beginning? It sounded to me like you were standing
up as a
Paul Robinson writes:
In short, you can put all the effort you want in, but -core and many
with a commit bit will resent you for it, because you're just a user.
4. In private I've already apologised for that particualr comment as I
realise now it was very Daily Mail of me to make it (for
Hi,
Time to force use of gnupg or something like that to prevent this to
happen. Just an opinion.
Yours,
Nuno Teixeira
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 02:52:58PM +0100, Maxime Henrion wrote:
Hi all,
Since several people actually thought this mail was written by me, I'm
replying
In a message written on Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:09:33AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
FreeBSD-5 was always going to be problematical. There have
probably been more things changed for this major version than for any
previous major version in history, maybe even for all previous major
In a message written on Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:22:44AM -0500, Lanny Baron wrote:
Just what we are wondering. Where is all the FreeBSD community support
for a Server company that fully supports FreeBSD? It certainly is not in
this letter.
Disclaimer: Until this message I didn't know
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
From a practical point of view that has been rapidly breaking down
over the last 6-12 months. People need features in 5.x. Various
people have decided (for good reason, I'm not questioning the
decisions) that a large number of features go into 5.x,
Hi,
Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
For FreeBSD to appeal to the masses it must install on the latest
and greatest Dell or Gateway or whatever, which means it must include
drivers for today's cheaper-by-the-gross parts from China. Driver
updates in particular need to be very regular, and in the
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2004-01-07 14:29:35 +:
Paul Robinson writes:
And for those of you who normally shout Submit a patch - well, I'm
thinking about it. :-)
I've been thinking of your objection to the submit a patch reply,
and I offer this as a proto-thought on how it can be applied
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
[1] has core@ considered subversion (devel/subversion)?
Everyone has their eyes wide open looking for a revision control
alternative, but last time it was discussed in detail (a few months ago?)
it seemed there still wasn't a viable alternative.
At 12:42 PM +0100 1/7/04, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If 5.3, when it arrives, is genuinely production ready, trust
me, the drinks are on me - I will do my absolute best to get
to the next BSDcon and get everybody drunk on an expense
account. If it
:It is INTERESTING to comment on someone whose viewpoint doesn't extend
:beyond the VM system, because out of Greenman, me and even Matt Dillon,
:(and the extremely respected alc), I don't know of any people
:with a myopic VM viewpoint. An example of that might be Matts ability
:and succes
At 9:57 AM -0500 1/7/04, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Speaking with a user hat on, I'll comment on what I believe
is the crux of the 5.x issue.
The take away I see is that this was too big of a chunk.
The next bite planned needs to be smaller.
I agree with this observation, but then it's easy to see that
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 20:29, Nick Rogness wrote:
1) Allow for paid development for a specific bug/feature
- Setup some program that allows users like myself to pay for a
developers time to fix a specific bug. The company I work for
would easily pay serious dollars
3) Simple but time consuming requests from developers
- Isn't it possible to have developers pass off some of
their simple tasks to others? Think of it like a pet dog.
Your dog may be able fetch your newspaper but he couldn't read it.
Still fetching the newspaper takes time!
I'd like to see a more open and inclusive form of governance for
FreeBSD. The current system of governance has, as its underlying
assumption, that the most prolific coders make the best leaders.
In my personal experience, this isn't a valid assumption. System
administrators and end users have a
At 12:40 PM 1/5/2004, Munden, Randall J wrote:
Right. What concerns me most is the rise in the incidence of trolls all
trolling about the same subject or along the same vein. Would someone
please explain what is going on? As a production user of fBSD this is
troubling.
It's probably one of
]
Onderwerp: Re: [Freebsd-hackers] Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 05 Jan 2004 22:01, Remko Lodder wrote:
I Never ever noticed that these things are playing within freebsd.org
I See a healthy and good working organisation behind freebsd.org
I think
At 04:00 PM 1/5/2004, Munden, Randall J wrote:
I think this is what is on my mind these days. I'm preparing to load
up some machines for production soon (I've already put it off for too
long waiting for 5-STABLE) and I don't like what I'm seeing -- with
both the mud slinging here and the
Experienced programmers can be leaders very effectively if they get
feedback regularly from users. Its part of software development to
communicate with users. Provided the leadership listens to users
requirements, and acts in that interest there is no problem.
In reality, there are several
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:30:03AM -0800, Maxim Hermion wrote:
I've been an avid follower of the developments in FreeBSD for around 5
years now, so my overview of the entire history of glue that binds
Sincerely,
Maxim Hermion
FreeBSD committer
Dare I ask for some form
Hi all,
Since several people actually thought this mail was written by me, I'm
replying here to tell it wasn't. This mail was sent by the same guy
who periodically impersonate one of the FreeBSD committers to rant about
the project. His mail doesn't reflect my thoughts at all. Please
-Original Message-
From: Brett Glass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 9:16 PM
To: Munden, Randall J; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Where is FreeBSD going?
At 04:00 PM 1/5/2004, Munden, Randall J wrote:
I
On Monday 05 January 2004 11:14 am, Brett Glass wrote:
I'd like to see a more open and inclusive form of governance for
FreeBSD. The current system of governance has, as its underlying
assumption, that the most prolific coders make the best leaders.
In my personal experience, this isn't a
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 09:05 am, Munden, Randall J wrote:
Honestly, I picked up the troll thread because I'm curious as to
why someone would commit so much time in effort to trolling
these lists. In my experience it's a good idea to explore the
reasoning behind that type of dedication
Munden, Randall J [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This makes me wonder if it isn't time for a new -core.
No, just a better email filter.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Munden, Randall J wrote:
Right, I typed that wrong. This conversation certainly isn't mud
slinging -- open, honest discussion can do nothing but good [no
matter the outcome].
The cleverness of the troll was:
1. It was written by somebody who at the least had read these lists for
at least the
Wes Peters wrote:
People who hate rarely require rational reasons for hating. Attempting to
apply logic to that which is not logical is not likely to produce useful
results.
Incorrect. Everybody who hates believes they have a rational reason for
doing so. That others do not think that those
-Original Message-
From: Wes Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:23 AM
To: Munden, Randall J; Brett Glass; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where is FreeBSD going?
On Tuesday 06 January 2004 09:05 am
On 5 Jan, Brett Glass wrote:
It's probably one of the Slashdot BSD is dead trolls. The fact is, though,
that there ARE things about FreeBSD that could stand improvement. These
days, when I build a box, I am torn between using FreeBSD 5.x -- which is
not ready for prime time but is at least
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Paul Robinson wrote:
And therein lies a problem. The only thing any of the committers cares
about is what they think. Got a problem? Submit a patch. Don't like the
way things are done? Submit a patch. Don't like how such-and-such a util
works? Submit a patch.
While it's
At 20:31 06/01/2004, Mark Linimon wrote:
There are hundreds of PRs still to be processed that do have
patches -- in fact, on most days the backlog is getting bigger,
not smaller.
Speaking of which... if there's one thing which could be done
to improve committer / non-committer relations, it
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Except, when Matt Dillon did submit, he was told to back out his changes
: and then lost his commit bit. This was because there was an imminent
: commit due from somebody working on SMP, which still isn't
I just have one comment... who gives a shit. Let this useless thread die.
William Michael Grim
Student, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Unix Network Administrator, SIUE, Computer Science dept.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Brad Knowles wrote:
Define us. You sure as hell aren't speaking for me.
Accepted. It came from [EMAIL PROTECTED] and therefore can only
represent my own opinion. But I know a lot of people who are looking at
deploying 5- who aren't just pissed off - they're *scared*. I don't
think many of
At 20:31 06/01/2004, Mark Linimon wrote:
There are hundreds of PRs still to be processed that do have
patches -- in fact, on most days the backlog is getting bigger,
not smaller.
Speaking of which... if there's one thing which could be done
to improve committer / non-committer relations,
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:52:50PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
FreeBSD also keeps falling farther and farther behind Linux in the area
of advocacy (and, hence, corporate adoption). Again, this is a governance
issue. Many of the developers actually have an antipathy toward advocacy,
since they
This makes me wonder if it isn't time for a new -core.
-Original Message-
From: Maxim Hermion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 12:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Where is FreeBSD going?
I've been an avid follower of the developments in
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
