On Sun, 2002-09-15 at 19:52, Larry McVoy wrote:
> We clearly have different definitions of what is acceptable. If your
> attitude is that understanding the code is a luxury all that means is
> that I want you nowhere near any code I maintain. Non-trivial code
> requires non-trivial understanding and that understanding is not a
> "luxury" in my book.
Well, since the code Daniel was referring to having debugged (ptrace and
thread debacle earlier) was broken and he successfully fixed it -- he is
welcome to come near code as far as I am concerned.
In short, he and Ingo fixed some messed up code and that is all that
matters. I do not care if he uses a debugger or a magic ball, so long
as he fixes it.
Personally, I do not use a debugger and it is partly because of the
reasons you list. But if Daniel can fix a problem (which he most likely
ran into firsthand with his work on gcc and gdb) then he is welcome in
my eyes.
> If your company has such a poor business model that they can't afford to
> pay you enough to take the time to do a good job then find a different
> place to work. No amount of debugger "help" is going to make up for a
> lack of understanding.
Please, give it up.
Robert Love
-
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 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:39 EST