Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!nntp.portal.ca!cynic.portal.ca!not-for-mail From: cjs@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc Subject: Re: Why no addusr? Date: 15 Feb 1997 09:53:15 -0800 Organization: Internet Portal Services, Inc. Lines: 46 Message-ID: <5e4t6b$o5p@cynic.portal.ca> References: <none-ya023480001912962244220001@news.infi.net> <1997Feb14.090136@screwem.citi.umich.edu> <5e312c$fc8@news.bayarea.net> <1997Feb15.102158@screwem.citi.umich.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cynic.portal.ca Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5462 In article <1997Feb15.102158@screwem.citi.umich.edu>, peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu> wrote: >jason, jim rees, who works at citi, submitted bug reports. [Repeated over and over again.] Peter, ok, we get the clue. I've gone and looked for PRs filed by jim rees, who works at citi. In an attempt to find these PRs, I did case insensitive greps of the full text of the entire PR database, including all closed and confidential PRs. These greps included all the headers in the e-mail, as well. 29 have the string 'rees'; none are from Jim Rees. 5 have the string `citi', none are from Jim Rees or anyone else at citi or umich. 9 have the string umich, none are from Jim Rees. There are six closed PRs from another fellow at umich: 331:From: ziff@eecs.umich.edu (closed same day) 333:From: ziff@eecs.umich.edu (closed four days later) 483:From: Brian Moore <ziff@munch.eecs.umich.edu> (closed same day) 484:From: Brian Moore <ziff@munch.eecs.umich.edu> (closed same day) 535:From: Brian Moore <ziff@houdini.eecs.umich.edu> (closed two days later) 543:From: ziff@eecs.umich.edu (closed eight days later) So were all these PRs submitted by Jim Rees submitted under a different name and from a different location, or what? I do understand that Jim Rees submitted a patch to wd.c to Charles Hannum, rather than submitting it as a PR. This means, of course, that nobody can inspect the code, but I'm told the patch was rejected because it had a nasty tendency to destroy file systems (and even did so to several people when it was included in another set of patches). I would find it difficult to accept in this particular case that Hannum did the wrong thing. cjs -- Curt Sampson cjs@portal.ca Info at http://www.portal.ca/ Internet Portal Services, Inc. Through infinite myst, software reverberates Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 In code possess'd of invisible folly.