I agree completely. I'd love to see it there.
I'd even help break^W fix it.
|Randy Dunlap Intel Corp., DAL Sr. SW Engr.|
|NOTE: Any views presented here are mine alone |
|and may not represent the views of my employer. |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Phillips
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 11:12 AM
> To: Mike Galbraith; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Availability of kdb
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Damien Miller wrote:
> > > Tools like a KDB would make the kernel a lot more
> accessible to the
> > > time-poor.
> > Kdb is available to all. I think it should be _integrated_ mostly
> > because of the (potential) improvement in bug report quality.
> Well, yes and no. As maintained by SGI, kdb is up to date:
> As maintained in the official ikd package, kdb is unusuably out of
> date, at least for me:
Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would the official version be out of
date, the way it is now?
Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would Linus be called on to fix it
when it breaks?
A: no, obviously not, Linus is too busy
Q: Who would fix it then?
A: Whoever breaks it.
Q: What if Linus breaks it?
A: That's a special case. I personally will drop whatever I'm doing
and try to fix it. I will cordially invite J. Dow, J. Merkey, R.
Gootch, and various other degenerate powertool lovers to help.
Q: Would kdb in the kernel result in more bugs getting fixed faster?
A: Yes, no doubt
Q: Do we need more bugs fixed faster?
A: Yes, we need that desperately.
Q: Would kdb in the kernel give us more eyes on the bugs, making them
even shallower than they already are?
A: Why, yes it would.
Q: Will kdb make your kernel bigger or slow it down?
A: Not if you don't use it.
Q: Is kdb a big patch?
A: It's only 93K, zipped.
Q: Then why isn't kdb in the kernel?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:26 EST