---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kaps...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation To: Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > > Hello Greg, > > > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the > > end > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk. > > > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some > > feedback from yourself too. > > > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to > > attend to > > at the moment, so there is no rush. > > > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience. > > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then > fixed it up at the end, right? > > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every > step of the way. > > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model > works. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel development model works. Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking? (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy the kernel development model requirements; (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code implemented as shell functions; While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell implementation over the awk one. Thanks. Alexander Kapshuk.
