On 7/27/09, Marco Peereboom <sl...@peereboom.us> wrote: >> :-) :-) :-) relax, take a pill -- no need to get emotional. >> >> besides I don't think we are seeing things that much differently. I >> didn't say you were making mistakes, but if you make krap-inviting >> statements like "the source code *defines* the behavior" then expect >> the likewise, albeit not-that-serious, replies. >> >> Besides, the code may well be acting like implementation and >> definition in one place, so no need to take such a heated bait to my >> light replies. I'll stop now :-) >> >> >> chill -- I don't mean to get a flame-war started, peace dude :-) > > Wow it is sunday night and you have used up all the manager-buzzword > speak for an entire month. What's next we have to go do some Agile > programming while implementing Extreme Programming ideas for UML > development that then becomes XML which we then can peruse for automated > testing because humans should not test?
:-) :-) At least you exhibit some sense of humor :-) I am not advocating the over-standardisation, I am merely noting that in the absence of committed-to standards, it is futile to consider any future-incompatible 'mood' of the kernel's behavior wrt issues discussed (e.g. c partition). And I am also *not* advocating that one should always strive towards any future-incompatible behavior -- only that considering such possibilities wrt discussed 'kernel mood' would be a moot (pun intended) point. That's all. > If I am not VP material now I don't know what will... > ... I don't know, tell me: "what will" ? :-)
