[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Possible breakthrough in the CML2 logjam?
Jeff Garzik <>:
> Well, let's simmer things down a bit and see what other people have to
> say. Maybe I'm completely off base.

Jeff, I'm not asking "other people". I'm asking *you*.

You're one of the people Linus says he trusts. Linus has said,
explicitly, to myself and Dave Jones, on this very issue, "get me out
of the loop". My take is that if you switch from opposing CML2 to
supporting it, the political wars will probably be about over.

I hope the prospect of actually getting to a metadata-centered
configuration system in our lifetime will be sufficient incentive for
you to do so. Oh lovely dream...I could have a prototype
metadata-to-CML2-bus-guards translator in less than two weeks, I
think, if I didn't have to maintain the CML2 rulebase all by myself. I
want to go there.

> 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.

OK. Is "global dependencies" your sole technical showstopper? If so,
can we dispose of the ill-defined "CML2 will fuck up my workflow" thing?

If you tell me yes, we can move to a discussion of why global
dependencies are a problem and how to solve it.
<a href="">Eric S. Raymond</a>
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:0.133 / U:7.664 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site