Subject: Re: bin/15142: cron doesn't use login.conf process limits
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/15/2003 18:38:56
In article <200303150944.EAA16499@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>,
der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:
>>> And I really really dislike the fact that there is no appeals
>>> system. [...]
>> You are not alone. [...]
>Well, if this is turning into a gripefest...
>I recall the time I submitted a PR for a bug I may be one of the few
>people likely to notice (because it was a UI that used ^D for a
>function that it should have used the user's EOF character for - I seem
>to be one of the few holdouts that actually _uses_ the ability to
>change things like EOF and suspend characters).
>This got closed as "fixed in current" when it wasn't, apparently
>without reading the description (that's conjecture, but I can't account
>for it any other way). I'm pretty sure I pointed this out, but I don't
>recall the PR ever being re-opened.
That I agree with, it should have been fixed properly, and you should
have re-opened the PR.
>Then there was the time I tried to get .h files fixed when they didn't
>include files they needed. (I got a bald "not a bug, won't be fixed".)
Yes, this is a standards issue. It would be a namespace violation for
a header to define symbols it is not supposed to, and not all headers
are supposed to be standalone. Our headers are amongst the cleanest
in the unix world in terms of standards conformance and readability.
As a metter of fact I hate it when I compile something on one system,
only to find out later that I forgot to include <signal.h> because
in the OS which shall remain unnamed, <stdlib.h> did this for me.
>Things like those sure raise the activation energy for bothering to
>send-pr other problems I notice.
It certainly takes more time to close a PR than to open one (usually),
so that should work as a balancing factor.
>Now, of course, things like this, or what greywolf experienced,
>wouldn't be that much of a problem if they were rare, isolated, and
>corrected when pointed out; anyone can make mistakes. But that's not
>the impression I've gotten; at _minimum_, there's a perception