Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>
> Rather than discussing what he's said, I ask: OK, if an integrated kernel
> debugger is inimical to developing more gurus, what contributions would
> Linus welcome?
>
> More documentation, so that more people can understand more deeply?
>
> Cleanup patches, to reduce the complexity that people have to wade through?
> Linus already seems very friendly to such patches (except when he's
> trying to push out a stable release).
>
> More commentary with submitted patches? Russ Nelson used to write linux
> kernel patch summaries, and so did I. It would be a lot easier if
> the people who wrote the patches wrote that commentary, and if it
> were kept with the patches or near the patches.
>
> A source control system so that curious people could do the equivalent of
> "cvs annotate" and figure out who wrote particular pieces?
Comments. You know, these things:
/* Stuff goes here */
Comments communicate the design intent. Code communicates the
implementation. The process of finding discrepancies between these is
known as "debugging".
The process of divining the design intent from the implementation is
known as "a waste of time", and is frequently impossible because of
information loss.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST