tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: src/bin/hostname

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Roy Marples wrote:
On 29/07/2013 18:15, Alan Barrett wrote:
New features that are likely to be controversial should be discussed before being implemented.

I don't view these changes as controversial hence I just did it.

OK, it's not easy to predict what changes might be controversial.

Since you are not even willing to explain why you made the changes, I think thay should immediately be reverted.

It seems that you can neither read, or you are just willfully ignoring my explanation.

If those are my only options, I'll take "unable to read".

Please could you post a reference to a message in which you describe the detailed semantics of the new hostname(1) options (not just the one-line descriptions in the man page), and explain what problems they are intended to solve and why they are a good solution for those problems. I'd like to try reading it again, since I apparently missed it earlier.

I fail to see why I should justify myself when others frankly just state their opinion with none or limited technical merits.

Anybody who introduces new options to an existing command, or who introduces a new API, should be willing to justify the changes. Your changes should be subject to the same requirement for justification as anybody else's changes.

How the hell is their opinion worth any more than mine? Not saying mine is worth more, but from where I am now it says my view is worth squat.

I see two messages from you in this thread, and in neither of them do you explain your view. I also don't see anybody saying that your view is worthless. (I do see people saying that the change is a bad idea, but that's not the same thing.) I'd really like to hear your view of why hostname(1) needs new options.

Maybe it's time for me to step away from NetBSD.

I don't see any need for that.

--apb (Alan Barrett)

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index