From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 24031 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 21:39:39 -0000 Received: from second.openwall.net (193.110.157.125) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 May 2023 21:39:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 26006 invoked by uid 550); 31 May 2023 21:39:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 25965 invoked from network); 31 May 2023 21:39:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 17:39:23 -0400 From: Rich Felker To: =?utf-8?B?SuKCkeKCmeKCmw==?= Gustedt Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20230531213922.GK4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20230531195928.GJ4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20230531230012.06369e12@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20230531230012.06369e12@inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] Re: High-level C23 process requests On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:00:12PM +0200, Jā‚‘ā‚™ā‚› Gustedt wrote: > Hello Rich, > so now your are putting the blame on me, is that it? I'm trying my best not to, despite being really frustrated. > All the patches but for the 128 bit support are mandatory for C23. OK. > I separated this in several threads, because *you* wanted this. At > several times I also posted a link to a git server that has all the > patches in one branch. You knew what was coming and in which threads I > planed to separate things. Yes, and I still think multiple threads are fine, but what I had in mind was a thread for each topic with posts in the thread evolving the discussion of it, not branching for each individual patch in the set. I never explicitly said that, though, and I'm not blaming you for not knowing local etiquette for this list. > Other than some years ago, I perceive this list as hostile and > patronizing, at times not engaging in real discussions but boasting > opinions that have been formed years ago and did not evolve. This is > not a place where I want to be. > > On the other hand I have the impression that we are almost finished. I > will still take into account bona fide advice how to improve patches, > evidently, if there are still things to comment. Then its up to you to > take what you like and to reject what you don't. It seems that you are > the boss here. I think we're coming at this with very different goals. From what I can gather (apologies if this turns out to be inaccurate), to you musl looks like a place that's accessible to implement all the new things C23 offers or allows, in a fairly straightforward way, that makes it possible to test these things and get started with using new language features you took part in shaping. To myself and others in this community, though, there's mixed sentiment towards new things. Already I've heard various comments to the effect that folks think C23 is this big bad thing designed by committee to impose new requirements nobody wants on implementations, calls to boycott it, etc. That is very much NOT my view, but it's one that comes up and that I'm stuck mediating. And new requirements often do make it more difficult to preserve properties existing users/community want and expect. An important principle I go by is that a maintainer's most important (technical) responsibility is to say no. This doesn't mean unconditional no everywhere, but that no is the default, that overriding existing project values and principles that a community has come to expect requires compelling reasons and obtaining consensus. My feeling during the whole C23 process has been that you've approached this without any regard for that, pushing for whatever way of doing things you would prefer, rather than what's most closely in line with existing practices of the project you're trying to make upstreamable changes to. I very much appreciate and respect your work on the standardization process and your support for and contributions to musl, but I'd be lying if I said this present engagement isn't really frustrating to me. As you've said, though, I think it's "almost finished", and I'll do my best to focus on technical matters (vs style etc.) of the parts that are appropriate and needed C23 support. Rich