On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:04:46AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 04:55:21AM +1000, matthew green wrote:
> > 
> > did you not quote this part of sean's message on purpose?
> > 
> >    "I've had it happen with just softdep, and with just new_bufq. The effects
> >    are more severe with just new_bufq."
> 
> I didn't quote it because it was totally irrelevant to what was actually
> in his original message, which we were discussing: his claim that when
> he turned _both_ features on, his sytem misbehaved, and that therefore
> we should not make _one_ of them the default.

Actually, saying "blah happened with x and y" can mean either "blah happened
with x and y at the same time" or "blah happened with x, but also happened
with y." The latter is how I intended that sentence to be interpreted. It
could have been clearer.

> I don't find that persuasive, to say the least, but if he doesn't care
> if he persuades me or not, by all means, he should continue to make
> "X and Y and Z, therefore if X, Z" statements and fill in the useful
> details later!

I don't care if I persuade you, personally, Thor, precisely because of the
fact that you love to troll like this. I *do* care about whether or not
NetBSD developers who are a little more mature take my descriptions of
experiences with NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY seriously when considering making it the
default.

-Sean