Robert Watson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Scott Long wrote:
>> This is a completely awesome demonstration of the proverbial bikeshed.
>> I only wish that, someday, an important subsystem that I spend
>> months/years working on will be judged by the names and prefixes that
>> I used in it. I can barely wait.
> An alternative viewpoint would be that, after a year of fairly
> catastrophic TCP bugs resulting from a lack of adequate review and
> testing of TCP changes, a lot of people are keeping a close eye on the
> TCP stack.
Other than your email about function name prefixes, the only other thing
that has been commented on in this mailing list is the file names. That
hardly counts as anything more than pedestrian.
> Let's not discourage that just yet.
Yes, I would like to discourage disrespectful nit-picking of an
important piece of work.
> I'd like to see all
> significant changes to TCP discussed on public mailing lists well before
> they are committed -- at that point, someone saying "actually, I'd name
> the files a bit differently" is a lot easier to deal with than, say,
> immediately after they are committed. This needs to be communally owned
> and maintained code, or in two years time we'll find ourselves in the
> same position: architectural well-meant changes that are mostly right,
> but with no review of the details leading to the inevitable failures.
A failure of what, exactly? Will the names that Kip chose lead to
failures of TCP sessions? Please enlighten me here.