Re: "wireguard" implementation improperly merged and needs revert

[Taylor R Campbell <riastradh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:37:36 +0200
> From: Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost>
> 
> Our main tree is cvs, but we are migrating to hg (anonhg.netbsd.org), and
> also mirror our tree on github. So three options exist, but Taylor will
> probably know better than me what's the best option.
> 
> As Manuel said, generally, for subsystems that are small and self-contained,
> CVS-HEAD is the preferred development branch, which is why wg went there in
> the first place.
> 
> But I don't think there is difficulty in moving the code to a separate
> branch if you like it better there. What do Taylor/Ryota think?

Ozaki-san's wg(4) code was in a git branch for two years.  As the
NetBSD network stack evolved, the wg(4) git branch was getting stale.
Having it in HEAD -- but not in any GENERIC kernels -- ensures it at
least stays tested and visible to anyone working on the network stack,
but users still have to go out of their way to use it.  This makes it
less likely to accrue NetBSD-specific bugs, without endorsing it as
ready for serious deployment.  And reverting and replaying would be a
big pain for me (not just a matter of `git revert' equivalent, for
certain technical reasons).

So, it is easy to read your (Jason's) request that we revert the
commits as the message -- whether you intended it this way or not --
that you want to parachute in to micromanage how we do development,
without actually engaging with how we do development first.

That's why you're getting some rather surprised pushback, and multiple
questions about the technical basis for your objection -- normally if
there's a dispute requesting a revert, it's over technical grounds
(and typically only if it affects users who are not going out of their
way to try experimental features), presented on a public mailing list.
If the parties don't come to an agreement then they can ask the core
team for a decision.  But that decision often takes a couple of weeks.
(Disclosure: I'm on the core team, but I recuse myself from any
decisions about disputes involving me.)

So it strikes us as weird -- and, perhaps, rude -- that you're asking
us to urgently revert something that's been kicking around for two
years, just so that you can discuss in one week why it has to be
reverted and/or how it should be fixed.

I'm still happy to have that discussion!  I am definitely curious to
hear what whole components are missing from the implementation and, as
far as I can tell, from your protocol documentation.  But until then,
I don't think this thread is going anywhere, so I think it would be
better for us to all just wait until next week to discuss further when
you have time to go into technical details.  NetBSD 10 is not going to
be released before then, let alone with wg(4) enabled.