On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:01:44PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> No, Raul is not making that assumption. He's just pointing out that
> the decisions about kernel architecture need different considerations
> to the decisions about what to ship in a distribution.
Exactly.
> The alleged cost of the n
remove!!!
-Mensagem original-De:
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Para:
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Data:
Sábado, 26 de Outubro de 2002 19:50Assunto: Re:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA
>>">>>" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
>> [Raul:]
>> > I made an earlier comment on that discussion thread:
>> > "This is an argument for the kernel a
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#161931:
kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]"):
> [Raul:]
> > I made an earlier comment on that discussion thread:
> > "This is an argument for the kernel architects. We're not kernel
> >architects, however -- we're distr
>>">" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Perhaps I've missed something?
>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:20:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Did you get Herberts mail detailing his objections to the
>> inclusion of vesafb?
>> I made an earlier comment on that discussion thre
> Raul> Perhaps I've missed something?
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:20:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Did you get Herberts mail detailing his objections to the
> inclusion of vesafb?
I made an earlier comment on that discussion thread:
"This is an argument for the kernel architect
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:10:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The ctte has no grounds to override the maintainer based on
>> mere guesswork, since they can't in honesty claim to have better
>> guesses than the maintainer.
Raul>
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:34:47AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Yes, you and Xu are of the same kind. You place some ideals (code
> perfectness, even with harmless code) over user's wishes.
Please, Eduard, this discussion is not about the people involved, it's
about the technical merits of vesa fb
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:10:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The ctte has no grounds to override the maintainer based on
> mere guesswork, since they can't in honesty claim to have better
> guesses than the maintainer.
Correct.
Instead we need to judge based on available evidence.
#include
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Oct 26 2002, 12:10:06AM]:
> Maintainability? There is more to clean code than mere
> aesthetics. As the kernel moves towards initrds and modularity,
> crufty
Yes, you and Xu are of the same kind. You place some ideals (code
perfectness, even with harmle
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> Well, certainly it's not decisive, but we're unlikely to get better
Ian> information. We're going to have to decide on the basis of the
Ian> information we have available, I think.
Then I do not think we have enough data to overr
11 matches
Mail list logo
