Hi, On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We've had people go with a splash before. Quite frankly, the current > scheduler situation looks very much like the CML2 situation. Anybody > remember that? The developer there also got rejected, the improvement was > made differently (and much more in line with existing practices and > maintainership), and life went on. Eric Raymond, however, left with a > splash. Since I was directly involved I'd like to point out a key difference. http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/2/21/57 was the very first start of Kconfig and initially I didn't plan on writing a new config system. At the beginning there was only the converter, which I did to address the issue that Eric created a complete new and different config database, so the converter was meant to create a more acceptable transition path. What happened next is that I haven't got a single response from Eric, so I continued hacking on it until was complete. The key difference is now that Eric refused the offered help, while Con was refused the help he needed to get his work integrated. When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically superior. When Ingo figured out how to implement fair scheduling in a better way, he didn't use this idea to help Con to improve his work. He decided instead to work against Con and started his own rewrite, this is of course his right to do, but then he should also accept the responsibility that Con felt his years of work ripped apart and in vain and we have now lost a developer who tried to address things from a different perspective. bye, Roman - 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/
