Re: KBuild 2.5 Impressions

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Sunday 02 June 2002 06:03, you wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> What you and other very vocal proponents of kbuild25 don't understand is 
> that you need break it up __functionally__. That is, add one feature at a 
> time. That way, good features can be added without much of a discussion, 
> and debatable features can be, well, debated.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't see Keith doing this anytime soon. He's too much in 
> love with his baby to risk seeing parts of it being thrown away, so he's 
> taking an all-or-nothing attitude.

Fortunately, he's got help now:

   http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?a=102296100300003&r=1&w=2

> Fortunately, it is precisely what Kai is doing. He deserves a big THANKS 
> for doing it, not your silly bashing. I also saw some good work on this 
> from Sam Ravnborg on the list.

If I got the impression that Kai was actually trying to work with the team,
I'd thank him for that.  He appears to be doing just the opposite, and I
stand by my comment that that is divisive.  He could accomplish the same
thing result he wants - patching up old kbuild - and bring parts of kbuild
2.5 into the tree, reducing the size of that patch *at the same time*,
instead of (apparently) trying to marginalize that work.  That is what I'd
call cooperation.

We have a perfect - and rare - situation here where the two can coexist in
the same tree, and may the best and fastest eventually predominate.  Let's
take advantage of that: let's have both in parallel for a while.

-- 
Daniel