"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Let's suppose we ignored this point for a moment. Let's also suppose
> that what you were demanding were not rendered horribly painful and
> perhaps impossible by the difference between CML1's imperative style
> and CML2's declarative one.
>
> How the hell do you possibly think I could possibly stay motivated under
> that constraint? Nobody is paying me to do this. I'm a volunteer; I
> need to produce good art, not waste time slavishly recreating old errors
> just because a few people are unreasonably fearful of change.
If you are not prepared to evolve the system, you are not familiar with
kernel development... Prove that CML2 is good and needed by breaking it
up into steps, reaching the final goal... Good ole Al Viro's patch
progressions are an excellent example to emulate :)
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
| - BBC TV show "Coupling"
-
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 - 21:00:11 EST