[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Disgusted with kbuild developers
On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:06 am, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> Don't tell us that's not doable. Do it and show us that you can do a
> perfect translation of CML1 into CML2 with all CML1 structural flaws.

"Hey, the new VM in 2.4.10 should have replicated the swap overload failure
case in 2.4.9! The first implementation should definitely melt down exactly
the same way! We need to artificially introduce all the flaws in the old
one, just to prove it can be done! Otherwise the new code is not

"To get people to try Linux on the desktop, first we need to make it
blue-screen just like windows."

"It's unfair to compare laptops to desktops unless you first remove the
battery from the laptop."

What the...?

Wouldn't it be nice if there was an implementation of CML2 that did
everything CML1 did -EXCEPT- for the structural flaws? Rather than a blind
mindless drooling bug-for-bug clone that defeats the whole purpose of
reimplementing the thing?

Your requirement seems to be based on the blind assumption that CML1 had
nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and CML2 didn't need to be done in the
first place. If that's your argument, then say it directly. (That might be
a defendable position. The one you just stated isn't.)

As for breaking CML2 so it's capable of producing a configuration that the
rulebase says won't compile, the way CML1 can... You do understand the
difference between a procedural and a declarative language, right?

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:0.160 / U:0.488 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site