Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com> ecrit :
[...]
> Indeed this is the case. I think such global cleanups are, in fact, less
> frequent than they should be precisely *because* lkml's social machinery
> discourages them.
May be it's a good thing: I^H Joe Average has some bright idea, does a
global cleanup, consume maintainers time. Problem: idea was not so bright or
actually really low priority one. Make him loose some hours and he will
think twice about the best way to spend time improving the kernel.
If we see a growing number of entry in the credits file for global changes
while drivers are not ported from 2.x to 2.x+2 (for example), there is be a
*real* problem.
People get discouraged because of this ? I hope they'll never have to
elaborate fixes for braindead hardware.
Look again at l-k archive: people do global changes (see VFS, network api,
etc...).
[...]
> > Question is, is it really worth it to create specialized tools for this
> > very rare case?
>
> Yes, if the rare case of supporting global cleanups actually needs to be a
> more common one. Think about that for a while, please.
I did and I feel we're building gaswork for nothing.
-- Ueimor - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:42 EST