[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Possible breakthrough in the CML2 logjam?
    "Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
    > But if "eliminate global depencies" is it, we can be allies, because
    > ultimately we both want to get the config system to the same place.
    > I've taken the first, biggest step -- from imperative code to
    > declaration/constraint language. The second -- from a
    > declaration/constraint language to a metadata-centered system --
    > will be easier.

    Well, let's simmer things down a bit and see what other people have to
    say. Maybe I'm completely off base.

    But to answer the question which the subtext seemed to asking (at least
    to me), no, there is no vendetta against you. And for the record on a
    specific detail, I have no problem with python use. If I have no major
    objection based purely on technical grounds, that what you'll be hearing
    from me.

    And further, in 2.5.x series at least, minor objections can be worked
    through after a kernel merge. But major objections... that's not the
    time when something -must- -go- -in-.



    Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
    Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
    MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
    | - BBC TV show "Coupling"
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.022 / U:1.836 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site