Re: CVS commit: src

[Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost>]

Answering quickly:

Le 18/12/2019 à 21:24, Taylor R Campbell a écrit :
> > Module Name:    src
> > Committed By:   maxv
> > Date:           Wed Dec 18 07:37:19 UTC 2019
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Retire filemon, discussed on tech-kern@.
>
> Please refrain from taking unilateral actions such as things you don't
> like without reasonable discussion.

I think you meant to say "REMOVING things you don't like". I removed it
after quick discussion, and taking into account the fact that filemon
was completely killed by secteam with no discussion either.

> - Nobody skimming tech-kern by subject line would reasonably expect
>    that a thread titled `[filemon] CVS commit: htdocs/support/security'
>    is the place to find a proposal of deletion on 18h notice.

See below

> - Nothing in the thread was actually a proposal for discussion -- just
>    an announcement that you have taken a unilateral decision to remove
>    it.

The first paragraph of the first email of this thread is literally a
question I'm asking to other people. "announcement of unilateral decision"
is about as dishonest and mischaracterizing as it can get. Disappointing,
but not unexpected.

> - And since the module is gone and the pseudo-device is disabled by
>    default, no unilateral emergency action is warranted, even it turns
>    out under discussion that there is community consensus that filemon
>    should be removed from the tree.

Maybe it could have occurred to you that it is precisely because this
feature has been completely killed already that I moved forward and
deleted it, after very quick discussion indeed? But see below

> Please revert the filemon deletion and ensure the tree builds within
> the next 24h.

I have reverted the bmake change, because Maya's concern (about diff
against FreeBSD) is legitimate, at least for the time being.

> If you want to see filemon deleted, you can raise the subject _after_
> you have reverted the commits.

You mean like, following the removal procedure core has already failed to
abide by in the past? In fact, maybe we should agree once and for all on
the actual procedure, and ALL accept to abide by it, INCLUDING core. What
do you think?

In the meantime, I have absolutely no intent to reinstate filemon. You can
reinstate it if you want, but it should come as no surprise to you in the
near future that filemon, after whatever "necessary" discussion or different
forms of bureaucratic idiocy you want to throw at it, will be deleted almost
as fast as it came back from the attic. Especially considering the emails
sent from the other people since I proceeded.

Maxime