[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [herbert@gondor.apana.org.au: Re: Bug#161931: kernel-image-2.4.19-k7: VESA driver for console]



#include <hallo.h>
* Manoj Srivastava [Sat, Oct 26 2002, 12:10:06AM]:

> 	Maintainability? There is more to clean code than mere
>  aesthetics. As the kernel moves towards initrds and modularity,
>  crufty 

Yes, you and Xu are of the same kind. You place some ideals (code
perfectness, even with harmless code) over user's wishes.

>  Ian> Guesswork.  No-one in this argument has any concrete data.
> 
> 	Yes. But the mainainer, being close to the package, and
>  presumably interacting with more users than non maintainers, often
>  has a better feel for subjective guess work like this.

Exactly this is the question and the answer (here) is: NO.

>  Ian> Do business users often turn on quotas on desktop machines ?  I'd be
>  Ian> surprised.  For servers, of course, most people will (or should!)
>  Ian> build their own kernels.
> 
> 	Then I think you should be prepared to be surprised;
>  Dec/Compaq, the university of massachusetts at amherst (various
>  departments), and several other companies I a=have ahd contact with
>  all had soft and hard quotas turned on.

Well, on how machines? Sure they should be enabled on large servers,
the number of them is not impressive.

> 	The maintainer has come up with a reasonable stance that the
> 	solution requires suboptimal code; prevents inclusion of
> 	modular code that other users may like, there is a reasonable
> 	alternative (vga16), and in his considered judgement
> 	fulfillment of the wishlist is bad.

When the maintainer does not give much on the user's wishes if they do
not match their own's, I will fight against this rule (*). I showed that
vga16 is an excuse and not a replacement.

(*): A fresh case,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=121335&repeatmerged=yes
Prety easy to fix in the kernel and it would work for any program. But
how refuses to accept this simple fix, because of the same
"only-my-upstream-code-as-modules-is-perfect"-dogma?

> 	The ctte has no grounds to override the maintainer based on
>  mere guesswork, since they can't in honesty claim to have better
>  guesses than the maintainer.

Reminds me on the Ivanova's God speech, but those days it was funny(**).

Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.

PS: (**) On your way back I'd like you to memorize the Babylon 5 mantra. Ivanova
is always right. I will  listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's
recommendations. Ivanova is god.  And, if this ever happens again,
Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out. Babylon control out.



Reply to: