Messages in this thread |  | | From | John Stoffel <> | Date | Tue, 22 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400 | Subject | Re: Background to the argument about CML2 design philosophy |
| |
David> You appear to be responding to my email, yet you did not do me David> the courtesy of including me in the recipients. Should I assume David> you're asking this question of me directly, or was it a David> rhetorical question?
It was more of an attempt to cutdown on the number of recipients, not any attempt to keep you out of the discussion. This time, I've left the recipients alone.
David> Good. You should be prevented from creating a .config which is David> broken, and the existing CML1 rules attempt to achieve David> this.
We are in agreement here, though I doubt that the CML1 ruleset really achieves this goal in any serious way. It just doesn't have the power.
David> CML2 should continue to do so, and indeed should do so more David> effectively and flexibly.
Agreed.
David> What I fear is that such new, unwanted, dependencies may be David> introduced to the kernel -- either by accident or by deception David> -- in the large patch which introduces CML2 and converts the David> existing rules files. Subtle changes to the behaviour could David> easily go unnoticed in such a large patch.
I don't agree with this, since the current CML1 scheme has wierd, unwanted and wrong dependencies already, which can't (or haven't) been found. Since it would be put in during the 2.5.x branching, it's expected that things will/can/should break, so I don't think there will be any dire consequences.
David> I think you are being overly defensive. I was not saying that David> CML2 is wrong. I said that I was ambivalent about CML2, and the David> point I'm talking about is entirely irrelevant to CML2 - except David> that I'm trying to make sure that the large CML2 patch is not David> used as a vehicle for sneaking other, more contentious, changes David> into the kernel.
Such as what? Do you have any examples here?
David> I want to discuss those changes _separately_ once the CML2 David> issue is out of the way, because otherwise people just won't David> bother to read what I said, and will assume I'm arguing against David> CML2 itself.
This is the first time you have come out and explicitly *said* what you are for and against in CML2. People need to be clear about what they are talking about.
As a general question for all readers, how many are against CML2 in any shape or form?
How many are like David, and don't mind CML2, but are worried about dependency issues?
How many think CML2 and it's dependencies will be a step forward in kernel configuration?
Thanks, John - 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/
|  |