Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin

Keith Owens
2002-01-31T12:03:45Z

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:58:10 -0500,
Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 06:52:55PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
>You are missing a huge point.
> You: "Look Ma, nothing breaks!"
> Ma sez: "It's supposed to, silly"

Hypocrisy, Jeff. In your previous mail you complained that kbuild 2.5
was not ready to go in. When I point out that not only is it ready but
it can go in without breaking the existing code, then you complain that
I am not breaking anything. Make up your mind.

>Cleanup does not occur if cruft lives on as "backwards compatibility."
>You simply promote further bitrot and discontinuity.

The old code does not live on indefinitely, it gets removed as soon as
kbuild 2.5 is deemed stable. Four weeks, tops.

>Let's see if I have this right:
>* You want completely duplicate build and config systems in the kernel,
> with all the accompanying headaches for maintainers.

Only for as long as it takes to prove that kbuild 2.5 is ready.

>* You want to introduce a new system but don't give a shit about 2.5.

I have given up trying to get patches into 2.5. The Linus black hole
swallows them all.