Messages in this thread | | | From | "Hua Zhong" <> | Subject | RE: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV | Date | Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:00:43 -0800 |
| |
> I do not know the time line of the flames vs. any decisions made by > Richard, though.
I believe this is what I saw but I am not exactly sure:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.3/0712.html
And at that time Richard claimed he was still active.
> And, yes, Al flames very hard and a bit rude -- but > I have never seen him wrong, that is for sure ;-)
Me neither :-) and when he is not flaming me (which I have not got the chance yet), it's fun to read. But I hate him, you know, because I now tend to be influenced by the way he (and several others on this list) writes emails, and that's not nice in a corporate environment!!
> So I cannot comment over _why_ defvs is unmaintained, but that is not > the point: either way, it stands that devfs is unmaintained. > That is a problem in and of itself.
It's just my impression that around that time core developers had decided to replace devfs with a new model. If I were in ths same shoes, I would probably also stop maintaining it. Then 2 years later when somebody asks, the reason to replace my code shouldn't be "unmaintained". Just the technical reasons should be enough. :-)
> Rob Love
- 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/
| |