lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/6] staging: pi433: Rename enum dataMode in rf69_enum.h
From
Date


Am 04.12.2017 um 21:56 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:31:06PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote:
>>>> Then it might be, that DATAMODUL_MODE_PACKET might need an other value.
>>>
>>> That's future code so we can delete that sentence for now.
>>
>> With the rule above, you are absolutely right. But we now spend time, to
>> remove an currently non necessary feature ("double layer"), which will take
>> time to re-introduce as soon, as someone wants to support a second chip.
>> Isn't that double-work and a thus a pitty?
>>
>
> It is what it is... In the kernel we insist all code have a user right
> now when it's merged. Unused code or future code is deleted. We hate
> abstraction layers. Everyone argues that their abstraction layer is
> different and good but kernel devs instinctively hate abstraction.
>
> To be honest, in the kernel we do do a lot of work twice. I made people
> redo 9 quite large patches for this pi4333 driver today. And they're
> probably going end up conflicting and have to be redone again... :/
> That does suck. I don't know what to do about it.
>
> In my view it helps that people sending patches don't ever have to worry
> about future code and we can focus on what exists now. Greg will never
> reject code for "future reasons" unless the future is almost right away
> like tomorrow or maybe the next day.
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>

Hi Dan,

I am self employed and controling two small companies. For me it is very
important to do efficient work - otherwise the 24 hours of a day are too
short to get my work done, even if I include the night.

The goal of most projects (my own, as well as my customers) is very
clear, but normaly you are not able to reach it in one pass. Therefore
projects are split up in parts and try to release parts, to be on market
earlier.
No one would accept, if I would optimise a software for a current
release in a way, that I close doors for the final goal.

So I agree: We can't change the rules and have to take them as they are.

But if I read your lines, it's shaking me. I observed this sending the
patch over and over again and it realy bugs me. Not beacause it might be
boring, mainly because for me it feels like a huge waste of time - time
I simply don't have.
Same applies to removing stuff, when I already now, (at least for my
products) I will need it in future.

Maybe controlling a straup, developing fancy new products, the market
likes to have (and in a time, the market is accepting you to present
them) and contributing to the kernel need that different kind of mind
set, that it's dam hard to do both at the same time.

Cheers,
Marcus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-04 21:22    [W:0.048 / U:2.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site