svn commit: r355301 - head/usr.sbin/bhyve

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 11:21 -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > On 12/4/19 9:35 PM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > > > I see, thanks for the pointers.
> > > > > It looks like cfmakeraw() and tcsetattr() were what I was
> > > > > looking for.
> > > > > A bhyve-specific printf wrapper looks the right solution to me.
> > > > > I can try to sketch a patch for you guys to review, if that's
> > > > > useful.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >   Vincenzo
> > > > 
> > > > Meanwhile could you please revert the commit, and add a note to
> > > > D22552 to the effects that this was not the right solution?
> > > 
> > > I don't think we have to revert as it isn't that big of a
> > > deal.  Just
> > > fixing it going forward is probably fine.
> > 
> > I disagree.  Not reverting this leads to a bunch of un-needed changes
> > in the forward moving review, clouding the view of what is really
> > being changed in that new review which is now a mix of undoing this
> > and adding a new set of macros to deal with end of line.
> > 
> 
> It doesn't cloud anything in the new review.  Reverting it will change
> all the \n\r back to just \n.  Then exactly the same lines will need
> changing on the do-over to remove the \n.

ACK  Ok, my oversight, I thought the \n would be staying, but your right it goes too.
 
> There are times when backing out a changeset and doing things over from
> scratch make sense, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

Perhaps... but fundementally, IMHO, a wrong change should just be reverted
even if the fix is simple and soon.  Again, IMHO, we are far to shy about
using revert.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org