![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:15:49 +0300, Al Boldi said: > > I don't think there is a lack of heuristics, nor is there a lack of > > discussion. What is needed, is a realization of the problem. > > > > IOW, respective tree-owners need to come to a realization of the state > > of their trees, problem or not. If it has a problem, that problem needs > > to be fixed or backed out of stable and moved into dev. > > I keep trying to parse this, and it keeps coming up as "content-free". Think denial. > For starters, you don't even have a useful definition of "has a problem". > There's a whole *range* of definitions for that, and even skilled and > respected members of the Linux kernel community can disagree about whether > something is "a problem". For example, see the thread about a week ago > about "Remove hotplug cpu crap from cpufreq". > > If, given a *specific* feature with high wart quotient, we can't agree on > whether it needs to be fixed or backed out, we're doomed to fail if we > start handwaving about problems "in general". As a group, we suck at > anything that isn't specific, like "Algorithm A is better than B for > case XYZ". We don't need to agree whether A is better than B, the mere fact that we acknowledge the problem is the first step in finding a solution. So, either fix it, or back out. OTOH, if there is no problem, then I guess we have blue skies... Thanks! -- Al - 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: 2006-11-11 11:29 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||