Hi,
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The point about backwards compatibility is that things WORK.
>
> There's no point in comparing things to how you _want_ them to work. The
> only thing that matters for bckwards compatibility is how they work
> _today_.
>
> And your suggestion would break every single installation out there. Not
> "maybe a few". Every single one.
>
> (yeah, you could find some NFS-only setup that doesn't break. Big deal).
>
> And backwards compatibility is extremely important.
dep_bool ' New mountalike partitioning code' CONFIG_PARTMOUNTING CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL CONFIG_WHATEVER
Or, since we're talking about the future:
<bool name="PARTMOUNTING">
<title>
New mount-alike partitioning code
</title>
<dep name="EXPERIMENTAL" sense="include" />
<dep name="WHATEVER" sense="exclude" />
</bool>
See? New Deal is for the ones that were annoyed by the old one.
Thunder
-- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .- --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.- --./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.-- 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 Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:16 EST