From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kay Sievers" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:34:28 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <3ae72650808110934j2df2cc82v4ac487f91cbee300@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: References: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> In-Reply-To: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 18:14, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 11, Kay Sievers wrote: > >> - I consider my rules much more readable and elegant than yours" > And I still hold this opinion. I believe that my rules are easier to > understand and you believe that your rules are easier to understand. > I do not see a possibile compromise. I never said so. I just said that I fail to see any difference in the "elegance" you claim. There is not really a need for a compromise, we asked you to send a patch to add that "elegance", and we will change the default rules until you don't find them equally elegant, and you could possibly switch over. If you ever do, is a different story, but it would be nice to come as close as needed to get a common default. If you don't like to send a patch, care to explain in detail, so someone else can "elegantize" the current default rules. :) Thanks, Kay