At Wed, 09 Nov 2005 01:43:01 +0100, Alfred M Szmidt wrote: > Right now Hurd on L4 seems to be dead as a stone
This is not true (or may have some truth in it, depending on how you define "Hurd on L4"). > And it will require a total redesign, total rewrite of > everything, and what not. This is not true. > People are confused where to spend their time On whose behalf are you speaking? I have not had a single complaint so far. > and have become more so > now that Hurd/L4 might not even be a viable choice. Again, who are you talking about? > Should time be > spent on the currently working Hurd/Mach, should it be spent on the > non-existant Hurd/L4, or should it be spent on the > Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist-yet? > > Marcus answer was `that is up to each and one to decide'. This is > completely inappropriate from someone who is a co-maintainer. Why do you think this is inappropriate? Please cite chapter and verse of the GNU maintainer standard. What do you think is appropriate instead? > Right now we have two projects that try to achive the same goal while > being totally incomaptible with each other, Incompatible in what regard? > and there is a chance that > yet another alternative comes a long that is incompatible with both of > the previous efforts. > > So I'm asking the maintainers (Roland, Thomas) what the heck is the > direction of the Hurd is or should be. If it is the Hurd/Mach, then > Hurd/L4 should be dropped completely, if it is Hurd/L4, then Hurd/Mach > should be dropped compltely, or if it is > Hurd/something-that-doesn't-even-exist. Of course, I don't speak for Roland or Thomas. But as far as I know, the direction of the Hurd has not changed at all. The Hurd-on-L4 efforts are an evaluation of a new design. Until such a design emerges as a viable alternative, there is nothing to decide. You don't explain why such a redesign process is fundamentally incompatible with maintaining the current code base. Consequently, your list of alternatives is narrow and in fact absurd: If one were to follow your advice strictly, no fundamental changes could ever occur in the development of a project. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
