[00:06:29] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left: Replaced by new connection [00:06:30] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has become available [01:06:37] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left [02:06:46] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has become available [03:18:43] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left [03:59:53] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [04:18:50] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [04:31:25] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has become available [04:50:36] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [05:24:17] --- reuteras has left [05:47:53] --- dwbotsch has left [05:48:35] --- Rrrrred has become available [06:42:26] --- dmontuori has become available [06:44:20] --- matt has become available [08:33:47] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left [08:41:41] --- SecureEndpoints has left: Replaced by new connection [09:11:08] --- manfred furuholmen has become available [09:12:47] --- SecureEndpoints has become available [09:18:07] is the wiki broken ? [09:36:37] --- dmontuori has left [09:36:37] --- dmontuori has become available [09:41:34] ick... Internal Server Error [09:41:46] it would appear to be borked... Der-rick!! [09:42:07] :-) [09:57:02] --- manfred furuholmen has left [10:44:19] > ick... Internal Server Error [10:44:24] i don't own the infrastructure [10:44:51] oh, the wiki? maybe i broke that [10:45:01] i tried to take the security update. i wonder if i botched i [10:52:39] try now? [11:05:04] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has become available [11:23:45] --- Russ has become available [12:11:42] derrick - works, now [12:12:32] yay [12:12:42] needed to fix file mode on Time.pm [12:21:25] just a minute propblem [13:29:53] --- dmontuori has left [13:30:48] --- dmontuori has become available [13:45:28] --- manfred furuholmen has become available [13:51:12] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left [14:29:31] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has become available [15:10:39] --- manfred furuholmen has left [15:25:27] we no longer build OpenAFS for the i386_nt40 platform. The supported platforms are i386_w2k and amd64_w2k> [15:25:42] Did patch recreate a file which had been removed from the repository? [15:26:34] it updated a file that isn't used [15:26:39] Yet, is preset [15:26:41] present [15:27:09] there are many architecture configuration files present in the config directory that are no longer actively used [15:27:23] if you are porting openafs back to nt40 you would use i386_nt40 [15:27:24] Hm, that's true. [15:27:34] so what is your point? [15:27:47] Files that are actually no longer used, or merely that are not used if you don't build for the platform in question? [15:28:05] I was asking what your point was, is all. [15:28:09] not used if you do not build for that platform [15:28:39] Just asking for clarification. [15:30:36] It doesn't seem immediately obvious the updates wouldn't be valid, but I certainly didn't make any attempt to build for nt40. [15:31:24] more importantly, you didn't build for i386_w2k or amd64_w2k. how many of those changes are actually required? [15:32:02] I didn't build i386_w2k? [15:32:22] your patch doesn't alter the i386_w2k configuration. [15:33:24] no, that's true. [15:33:37] can I assume that you actually test patches you send to RT? [15:34:11] No, your job is to not assume that. :-) [15:34:25] jhutz: of course not. [15:34:35] I think you can, yes, but I'm not perfect, and I'm consolidating some changes here. [15:36:40] based upon that answer, my assumption is that when you send something to RT, it has not been tested and is in fact a best guess of what a patch might look like. [15:38:26] Why do I feel your tone implies, not, "hey, assume, in future that anything you send to RT without some explicit warning shall be regarded as if you proposed to commit it without review," but something else. [15:39:24] I would like to assume that patches that hit RT are things that are deemed to be ready for committing. [15:40:01] That's fine. [15:40:11] if they are not deemed by the author ready to commit, then I'm going to have to spend significantly more of my time reviewing and re-writing [15:40:30] which means "it goes to the bottom of the to do list" [15:41:25] It seems reasonable to submit other things occasionally, but I'll happy mark them as for the bottom of your list. [15:42:38] i'd like a pony [15:43:09] but yes, "conceptuasl" being marked as such is nice [15:43:18] without the extraneous "s" [15:45:13] That wasn't how I intended this, so in future, I'll audit extraneous bits more carefully. The patch _was_ tested, on i386_w2k, and not amd64_w2k, and I could have indicated that as well. [15:45:14] think of it this way. if you are a random user and wanted to find out how to build openafs with vs2009, you might look in RT to find a patch once you read that it is not a supported compiler platform. if you found a patch that someone submitted to build with vs2009 you would assume it works (unless there is a comment as part of the ticket saying "this is a random piece of junk that might or might not work.") [15:45:47] jeff, no. no random users use rt. get real. [15:46:25] they go to search, it's too slow, they get no answer in 5 seconds, they punt and annoy the list, and we mock them for not searching rt [15:46:42] Well, actually they do use it, and I'd like them to use it more, so with less force, Jeff's point is valid. [15:46:48] which, well, i am impatient but unsympathetic to impatient people [15:47:02] ok [15:47:12] if you believe it more powert to you [15:47:19] pretend i can type (net sucks) [15:47:31] I was calling out other uses of RT, not trying to make room to submit unhelpful diffs. [15:47:34] however, the reality is as derrick describes it [15:48:45] derrick tries to be accurate if snarky [15:48:49] which means that patches that go to RT should be things that are either deemed by the author as ready to commit, or as a prototype which should be combined with a posting to openafs-devel asking people to review, comment, test, etc. [15:48:55] derrick tries to be less snarky but realism calls for some [15:49:06] ==jeff [15:49:07] There were hunks in each of those diffs that I did not audit, so though tested, they are imperfect, in an easily correctable way. [15:49:35] i got simon to audit my aix and solaris diffs. i need to commit them but my solaris vm is sucking the ass. [15:49:37] but why waste my time with them? waste your time [15:50:38] waste everyone's time. have a party. [15:50:53] Well, that is a point with which I take issue. I felt the diffs would be skimmed and picked apart and used as given, and I would in fact have happily received them, were our positions reversed. [15:51:09] putting it another way. I think you are a reasonably smart person. if I see a change from you that looks wrong, I have to ask myself "why would matt make this change?" [15:51:21] there must be some reason [15:51:39] if you see a change from me that's wrong you can assume i'm being a jackass. i try to keep it to only 4-5 times a week [15:51:44] You seem argumentative. I feel like Eliza. [15:52:18] i almost said "this is ephyr, it exists for arguments". [15:52:29] just assume this is zephyr. close enough. [15:52:43] "this is the openafs developer community. welcome to arguments" [15:53:02] The point is taken (Jeff). [15:53:40] s/openafs developer community/internet/ [15:53:56] s/internet/Earth [15:54:13] nah. i don't have to worry about bass ackwards countries otherwise [16:36:37] --- matt has left [16:45:52] --- dmontuori has left [17:48:49] --- dev-zero@jabber.org has left [18:51:46] --- Russ has left: Disconnected