On February 18, 2002 04:15 pm, SodaPop wrote:
> I can't believe you people, even if you are high level kernel
> maintainers.
>
> The most major complaints I see against CML2 are that 'the
> behaviour is different from CML1' and 'CML2 has a whole bunch of
> "features" too which will be shoved down our throats'.
>
> Duh! That was the freaking point! Granted I'm not a kernel hacking
> expert, but I've been building my own kernels since 1995 and I see
> definite value in having the side effects and grouping stuff in
> CML2. I also see significant value in having the symbol set and
> rules provably coherent.
>
> You guys change the low level kernel interfaces all the time. You
> change module interfaces out from underneath people every other
> month. You depreciate malloc.h and replace it with slab.h and
> don't so much as give it a second thought, yet you bitch up a
> storm about how the changes in CML2 behaviour are unacceptable?
Right. The bitching and moaning is stupid. Lets move on.
> You guys force changes down the throats of other people all the
> time. Well now, in my lowly opinion, it's time for you to do what
> everyone else is already used to - choke it down, and comfort
> yourself by saying 'it was the right thing to do.'
>
> Looking forward to seeing CML2 in 2.5,
Yup.
-- Daniel - 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 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:17 EST