From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:23:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:23:45 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]:41233 "EHLO smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:23:33 -0500 Message-ID: <3BF1C72C.2B5B5EB3@linux-m68k.org> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:21:48 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Gooch CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Next cut of new devfs core In-Reply-To: <200111131855.fADIt2Q26535@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard Gooch wrote: > If people could try this out and report back, I'd appreciate it. Do you have any other intentions for us than to just "try this out"? If not then an URL to the patch would suffice instead of flooding the list with lots of 80kB patches. If you want other feedback, I would greatly appreciated it, if you would make it a bit easier for other developers. Incremental patches would help to see what actually changed, or even better make them available through CVS (I think I suggested that before). Your coding style was already mentioned as well, so I'm not going to repeat that. Anyway, an important point you should understand is that, you might be the devfs maintainer, but devfs is not an isolated project. The common project is Linux, which is maintained by lots of people, to make such a cooperative development effort possible these people have to agree on some basic rules. One of these rules is the coding style, Linus might not care too much about it, but by now you should have noticed several other developers do. To maintain a high code quality a constant code review is necessary, a single person can mistakes, that's normal, but it's important to learn from mistakes. That also requires that other people are able review the code, but you aren't making it very easy to review your code. If you're going to continue with this attitude I can only support Al to split the code. Sorry, there isn't much room for an ego trip, if you're not able to deliver high quality code (for whatever reasons of which we got enough by now). bye, Roman