From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1EW9nb-00041G-FS for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:48:23 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EW9nY-0003yp-Vd for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:48:21 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EW9nX-0003xJ-Mt for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:48:20 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EW9nX-0003wK-4N for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:48:19 -0500 Received: from [145.74.66.11] (helo=mail-cn.han.nl) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EW9nX-0000i6-5u for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 04:48:19 -0500 Received: from vscan-cn.han.nl (venus.han.nl [145.74.65.6]) by mail-cn.han.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F78863C for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:45:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-cn.han.nl ([145.74.66.11]) by vscan-cn.han.nl (venus.han.nl [145.74.65.6]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29855-03 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:45:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail1.han.nl (mail1.han.nl [145.74.103.11]) by mail-cn.han.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E73184CE for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:45:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain (mgerards.xs4all.nl [82.92.27.129]) by mail1.han.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5100BC046 for ; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:45:14 +0100 (CET) Mail-Copies-To: metgerards@student.han.nl To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <87u0f0t30k.fsf@student.han.nl> <200510300625.22134.okuji@enbug.org> From: Marco Gerards Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:45:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: <200510300625.22134.okuji@enbug.org> (Yoshinori K. Okuji's message of "Sun, 30 Oct 2005 07:25:21 +0200") Message-ID: <874q6zl4np.fsf@student.han.nl> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new (2.2.0) at vscan-cn.han.nl Subject: Re: Scripting support (PATCH) X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:48:21 -0000 "Yoshinori K. Okuji" writes: > Now, both Marco and Vladimir work on the scripting support separately, and I'm > glad to see the development going well. However, we must choose either of > them (or even none of them, if both are not good ;) to integrate a result > into the official code. > > I understand that there are two implementations because they do not agree on > one or more technical issues. As the maintainer, I need to listen to opinions > (not mental ones, but technical ones), and determine a direction. So I ask > you to speak pros and cons in both implementations (especially, Vladimir and > Marco). Even if you are not Vladimir or Marco, if you have any opinion, feel > free to describe it. Right, I felt it hard to explain the direction I'd like to take on this list. So I have implemented the core functionality because that definitely has to be right. > - What are advantages in Vladimir's implementation? More features. > - What are disadvantages in Vladimir's implementation? In my opinion it is not clean enough and does not integrate with GRUB like I would like it to. And Vladimir's patch was way too hard to maintain when I started working on this a week ago. > - What are advantages in Marco's implementation? It's more flexible, cleaner and easier to maintain. > - What are disadvantages in Marco's implementation? It's work in progress. > Here are my own: > > - What are advantages in Vladimir's implementation? > > It has already implemented most features we need. Right, but I have asked Vladimir several times for a discussion on this mailinglist about what the features are. That discussion did not properly take place yet. > - What are disadvantages in Marco's implementation? > > Fewer features are implemented. The kernel is bloated. What do you mean with the kernel is bloated? My patch moves a lot of responsibility to commands. I would say it is less bloated. Thanks, Marco