Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> writes:

> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:23:09PM -0800, Bucky Katz wrote:

> I do not know what the #netbsd-devel and #netbsd-code IRC channels are
> (though it seems fairly self-evident) nor who might have brought them
> into existence, and I've been a NetBSD developer for well over ten years.

I guess you haven't participated in the hackathons then, nor are you
as well informed about what's going on as you've been asserting in
your private emails.

> I do not see public mailing-list messages nor PRs from you (though I don't
> know who else might work with you and might have posted such messages) that
> contain the kind of information Jeremy seems to be talking about.
>

http://www.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=34612

A sendpr about SA complete with a patch.

There's nothing public on our changes to userland pthreads because I
sent the patch to Andy for review before posting it publically, since
he made a lot of changes to userland pthreads that conflicted with
what we did and I wasn't aware that he was about to drop the whole
thing int current.

> I think there is a fairly obvious communication problem here, but
> you, on the other hand, seem to think it's all someone else's fault.

No. I don't think that.  I know where my faults in this are.

> I think there is probably plenty of fault to go around, but I keep
> pretty good tabs on all the official ways to communicate about
> NetBSD, and this is the first I can ever remember seeing on this
> topic from you.  That indicates to me that that's probably true for
> a lot of other NetBSD developers as well.

Well given that you couldn't find an SA bug report with my name on it
search the database, I hope you don't mind if I'm not too terribly
impressed with your memory.

As I said, when we started out, we tried posting on relevant mailing
lists, and got zero feedback. When no one listens, you stop talking.

> Please, it would be nice if this silly bickering could stop, and we
> could simply start communicating effectively.

Please stop sending me emails accusing me of "shouting".  Please stop
pretending to more knowledge about what's going on wrt to this issue
than you actually have.  Please stop being defensive.  All of those
would be good steps towards more effective communication.

> As I believe was mentioned in the announcement of the threading
> change, I don't think anyone is going to reject patches to make SA
> work again in the uniprocessor case -- but by the same token, I
> don't think anyone is going to _produce_ such changes just because
> you're angry, so it would be good if we could find a more sensible
> way to resolve the problem the newlock2 integration has evidently
> (and regrettably) caused for you.

I have no way to "solve" this problem. The NetBSD foundatation,
without consultation with the development community, has arbitrarily
removed functionality from the kernel. As far as I can see you've got
no intention of reversing that decision or even defering it and asking
for that input.

I'm stuck having to do more work because your process is broken.  I've
got to throw away code I shouldn't have had to because your process is
broken. I'm sorry you think I'm "angry" because I point that out.  But
I've been trying to get people inside the NetBSD foundation to be
responsive to external developers for almost a year now, with
absolutely no useful effect.

And now, here you come, calling an attempt to get the foundation to be
more transparent, using this lost work as a goad, "silly bickering".