From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 16:48:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 16:48:42 -0400 Received: from snark.tuxedo.org ([207.106.50.26]:12559 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 20 May 2001 16:48:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:47:00 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: David Woodhouse Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Background to the argument about CML2 design philosophy Message-ID: <20010520164700.H4488@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: "Eric S. Raymond" , David Woodhouse , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010518112625.A14309@thyrsus.com> <20010518113726.A29617@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20010518114922.C14309@thyrsus.com> <8485.990357599@redhat.com> <20010520111856.C3431@thyrsus.com> <15823.990372866@redhat.com> <20010520114411.A3600@thyrsus.com> <16267.990374170@redhat.com> <20010520131457.A3769@thyrsus.com> <18686.990380851@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <18686.990380851@redhat.com>; from dwmw2@infradead.org on Sun, May 20, 2001 at 06:47:31PM +0100 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Woodhouse : > I think you already have the mechanism required to answer this - in NOVICE > mode you disallow the strange choices, in EXPERT mode you allow them. That pushes the third button. I'm nervous that if we go down this path we will end up with a thicket of modes and a combinatorial explosion in ruleset complexity, leading immediately to a user configuration experience that is more complex than necessary, and eventually to an unmaintainable mess in the rulesfiles. In order to prevent that happening, I would like to have some recognized criterion for configuration cases that are so perverse that it is a net loss to accept the additional complexity of handling them within the configurator. A lot of people (including, apparently, you) are saying there are no such cases. I wonder if you'll change your minds when you have to handle the overhead yourselves? Sigh... -- Eric S. Raymond "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790