Re: ioctls, etc. (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] sas: add flag for locally attached PHYs)

Regala
2005-10-24T16:04:36Z

Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@adaptec.com> disait dernièrement que :

> On 10/24/05 11:41, Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Llu, 2005-10-24 at 09:51 -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>>
>>>controls and how. Understanding how the factory workers use it and what
>>>they expect. Understanding the code (which may not be as easy). Then it
>>>is rewritten so that it can be easily supported and maintained.
>>
>>
>> Very very rarely, because it means down time and supporting two systems
>> at once. Take a look at the australian customs fiasco or the british
>> passport office disaster to see why (actually almost any large
>> government IT project where politics dictated 'write new stuff so I can
>> announce it in parliament').
>>
>> The smart factory update would occur piece by piece. Starting with the
>> most pressing problems (ie fastest ROI) and working to a plan that ends
>> up with the system modular and clean.
>>
>> You don't turn a steel plant off for a software upgrade.
>
> There was 0 (zero) effective downtime to the factory.

but refactoring can be done in incremental pieces, can't be ?
rewriting it from scratch is, in this very case, really for the sake
of self-pride and brain-masturbation.
Bravo

This is not a really convincing example...

--
Mathieu Segaud