Re: kdbus refactoring?

From: David Herrmann
Date: Mon Nov 09 2015 - 03:56:15 EST


On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:34:37AM +0100, David Herrmann wrote:
>> Hi
>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Quoting Documentation/development-process/1.Intro:
>> [...]
>> >> Years of experience with the kernel development community have taught a
>> >> clear lesson: kernel code which is designed and developed behind closed
>> >> doors invariably has problems which are only revealed when the code is
>> >> released into the community. Sometimes these problems are severe,
>> >> requiring months or years of effort before the code can be brought up to
>> >> the kernel community's standards.
>> [...]
>> > And I've seen you specifically recommend having such conversations early
>> > and often.
>> I think comparing kdbus to "behind closed doors" development models is
>> unfair. We chose to center our development around DBus, not the
>> kernel.
> And yet it will be the kernel people you ask to take your code. You
> don't see something funny with that?


>> Anybody who is interested in kdbus discussions could have
>> easily joined the DBus and systemd communication channels (and *many*
>> people did). I see little reason in cross-posting everything to LKML,
>> especially given that our communication is rarely mail-based.
> So you want to develop kernel code, but can't be arsed to do it the
> kernel way? Gheez, no wonder this all is going so well..

The submission and following year of development followed the 'kernel
way'. I don't see why the design phase needs to follow your style,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at