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, 22 May 2001 13:18:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:18:45 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:28659 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 22 May 2001 13:18:31 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <15114.37415.204391.420484@gargle.gargle.HOWL> In-Reply-To: <15114.37415.204391.420484@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <15113.31946.548249.53012@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20010520165952.A9622@devserv.devel.redhat.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> <20010520164700.H4488@thyrsus.com> <25499.990399116@redhat.com> <7938.990539153@redhat.com> To: John Stoffel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Background to the argument about CML2 design philosophy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: <5080.990551878@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org stoffel@casc.com said: > I don't agree with this, since the current CML1 scheme has wierd, > unwanted and wrong dependencies already, which can't (or haven't) been > found. Since it would be put in during the 2.5.x branching, it's > expected that things will/can/should break, so I don't think there > will be any dire consequences. OK, I obviously don't expect the behaviour to be _exactly_ identical. If CML2 allows the authors' intent to be more closely adhered to, that's a good thing. But if the CML2 files exhibit behaviour which was clearly _not_ the intention of the original CML1, that is a change which should be made under separate cover. > Such as what? Do you have any examples here? The MAC/SCSI dependencies, which it seems were 'simplified' at the cost of preventing certain combinations which were unlikely but valid, and which it was possible to select with the original rules. Also of course the whole class of dependencies which people are talking about introducing for the benefit of the hypothetical Aunt Tillie. I don't know how many, if any, of this kind of changes are _actually_ made in the current CML2 rules files - what I'm saying is that there _should_ be none. Such large changes to the policy are entirely unrelated to CML2 itself, and should be discussed separately. If your response to this is "But there are no such changes, you misunderstood the MAC/SCSI dependency conversation and the Aunt Tillie stuff was all hypothetical, what are you talking about?", then good - that's precisely the answer I was after. All I'm asking for is a clear agreement that within reason, the behaviour of the CML2 rules files immediately after CML2 is merged will match the intended behaviour of the CML1 rules prior to the merge. -- dwmw2