![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:03:07PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:58:10 -0500, > Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org> wrote: > >On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 06:52:55PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > >You are missing a huge point. > > You: "Look Ma, nothing breaks!" > > Ma sez: "It's supposed to, silly" > > Hypocrisy, Jeff. In your previous mail you complained that kbuild 2.5 > was not ready to go in. When I point out that not only is it ready but > it can go in without breaking the existing code, then you complain that > I am not breaking anything. Make up your mind. You still do not appear to understand. Please re-read my last message. If kbuild was ready to go in, the old build system should go away. ready != not breaking things, if you are breaking things on purpose. > >Cleanup does not occur if cruft lives on as "backwards compatibility." > >You simply promote further bitrot and discontinuity. > > The old code does not live on indefinitely, it gets removed as soon as > kbuild 2.5 is deemed stable. Four weeks, tops. You don't prove something stable with most people not using it. > >Let's see if I have this right: > >* You want completely duplicate build and config systems in the kernel, > > with all the accompanying headaches for maintainers. > > Only for as long as it takes to prove that kbuild 2.5 is ready. Not the Linux kernel way. Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:16 [W:0.216 / U:0.020 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||