Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Sun, 18 Feb 2007
11:46:44 +0000 (GMT)):
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Sat, 17 Feb 2007
19:37:48 +0000 (GMT)):
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
- Magic symlinks: Several implementations exists, so we don't need more
people looking at this right now.
But we need people reviewing them and chosing the right one. So
the entry needs to be changed instead of removed.
I think an alternative explanaation is that people have looked at
them and been left sufficiently worried by the experience as to
wonder whether "magic symlinks" are really a good idea. I think
we should take it off the list before we get yet another set of
patches that won't be accepted for the same reason.
There are mixed feelings about this in the responses. AFAIR it can
be summarized to: If it is not enabled by default and needs to be
activated even when compiled in (sysctl), then nobody will object.
The crowd which is interested in the magic symlinks would be happy
with this solution too.
No, I disagree. We will not accept security holes that are disabled by
default if the primary purpose of the feature is to cater to
environments in which the feature will be a security hole. This is a
property of at least one of the patches submitted to date, and my
feedback along these lines was (I seem to recall) entirely ignored.
Please stop asking people to implement magic symlinks unless you are
willing to provide the necessary oversight to make sure that we don't
get yet more patches that represent security holes.
Ok.
If an entry is removed completely because it is inappropriate we
should list it somewhere and explain why it will not be accepted in
the tree.
I think we shouldn't try to enumerate everything that is a bad idea
because that list is very, very long. Instead, we should stop asking
people to do things that we think are bad ideas. If there is a
I don't want to put everything up there. It's more like a FAQ list,
but instead of questions there are rejected ideas. Magic symlinks come
up from time to time. So it is a candidate for such a rejects-list.
variation on the theme that could potentially be a good idea, but we've
had several submissions that are not good ideas to date, then it's
clear having it on the ideas list isn't helping matters.
I have mixed feelings about "zombie" entries since we've reached
the point where most entries would be zombie entries. How about
we have a separate page on projects that are currently in
progress? People go to the ideas page, one presumes, to find
things to work on, so we should only list things that are new
ideas to be worked on.
The metaphor behind my idea about the zombie entries can be
visualized like as the plug-in window in firefox. It tells you the
current status and when you click on update it will show te
plug-ins which can be updated. When you update them the state
changes in the list.
Your proposal can be visualized as two tabs, one with the plugins
for which updates are available (open ideas), and one for the
plugins which will be activated at next (re)start (nearly finished
ideas).
For the firefox plugins the current way is more appropriate. For
our ideas list I see good points in both approaches. I can't really
say one is more appropriate than the other. A variation of the
zombie entries idea is to have a separate paragraph for the nearly
finished stuff.
My main motivation is to show the progess we make. Sometimes I get
drive-by questions about the status of some of the entries. So our
userbase definitivly wants to know about the progress. As long as
we inform them instead of just removing the entries, It's ok for
me. I don't care that much if this is inline, as a separate
paragraph, or as a separate page.
People go to the ideas page to find ideas for things to do. Things
already being done that don't need further help aren't things left to
do. We have at least one web page for in-progress projects -- how
about we move the in-progress projects to that page and give it the
It's not the same scope. While each entry in the ideas list is a
project on its own, it is most of the time not a big picture project
like SMP or netperf.
The linuxulator entry on the ideas list for example is a project which
would be suitable to put on the projects page. It is not there but we
have some wiki pages about it. The wiki is more suitable for this
instead of a projects page in CVS. There are contributors which are
not committers which run for example the linux test project tests on
amd64 hardware and update the status page in the wiki. We can add a
link from the project page to the wiki pages, but I prefer a link from
the ideas list to the wiki page. A link from the project page looks to
me like there's a team working on this and they are proceding just
fine, while a link from the ideas page actively shows that a project
wants/needs help.
On the other hand, the ideas entry to extend dump/restore for better
UFS2 support (backup of extended attributes) is not a big picture
project which I would put up on the project page.
same love and care that the ideas page is getting? Or would you rather
Someone who is willing to put some love into the project page would be
nice. There are several projects which seem to be dead. And if someone
would want to continue with some of those projects he would need to
restart from the beginning. So the page needs clearly a helping hand.
Maybe we should put up an entry on the ideas list, maybe a volunteer
is willing to ping all listed people about the status to determine if
it is still worthwile to have all projects listed as they are ATM.
we repurposed the current projects page to be a new ideas page, and
pointed at that for new ideas instead?
In my eyes those 2 pages have different intentions while having a
little bit of overlapping stuff. The stuff they have in common is not
large enough to merge them.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
