RE: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV

[Rob Love]

On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 17:21, Hua Zhong wrote:

> But I do have sth fair to say about this "unmaintained" part.
> 
> From my memory, at some point in time, somebody (Al Viro?) reviewed
> devfs code and flamed the author in public (klml), throwing lots of bad
> impolite words to him, which I think was the biggest reason that the
> author stopped maintaining it. This was one of the projects that got
> killed by flames, or improper handling with flames (another one that
> comes to mind is CML2).
> 
> Correct (but not flame :-) me if I am wrong.

Well, Al definitely shot forth many flames over devfs, for sure :)

I do not know the time line of the flames vs. any decisions made by
Richard, though.  Some flamage was definitely earlier, when Richard was
active, and some flames were definitely after Richard scaled back his
kernel development.  And, yes, Al flames very hard and a bit rude -- but
I have never seen him wrong, that is for sure ;-)

So I cannot comment over _why_ defvs is unmaintained, but that is not
the point: either way, it stands that devfs is unmaintained.  That is a
problem in and of itself.

	Rob Love


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/