On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 01:18:09AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > very much so! Both Con and Mike has contributed regularly to upstream > sched.c:
The problem here is tha Con can get demotivated (and rather upset) when an idea gets proposed, like SchedPlug, only to have people be hostile to it and then sudden turn around an adopt this idea. It give the impression that you, in this specific case, were more interested in controlling a situation and the track of development instead of actually being inclusive of the development process with discussion and serious consideration, etc... This is how the Linux community can be perceived as elitist. The old guard would serve the community better if people were more mindful and sensitive to developer issues. There was a particular speech that I was turned off by at OLS 2006 that pretty much pandering to the "old guard's" needs over newer developers. Since I'm a some what established engineer in -rt (being the only other person that mapped the lock hierarchy out for full preemptibility), I had the confidence to pretty much ignored it while previously this could have really upset me and be highly discouraging to a relatively new developer. As Linux gets larger and larger this is going to be an increasing problem when folks come into the community with new ideas and the community will need to change if it intends to integrate these folks. IMO, a lot of these flame ware wouldn't need to exist if folks listent ot each other better and permit co-ownership of code like the scheduler since it needs multipule hands in it adapt to new loads and situations, etc... I'm saying this nicely now since I can be nasty about it. bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
