At 3:35 PM -0800 2004/02/17, Randy Bush wrote: >> It is the less experienced/less knowledgeable people for whom we >> should be concerned about with regards to POLA. > > and when current becomes stable? Then we can make wholesale changes in the new current, while making almost exclusively incremental improvements in stable. > what is the functional improvement of the change? what will > the user actually get for the pain? A GENERIC kernel description that is more intelligently organized? More easily understood? More easily modified to suit situations that are close but not quite exactly the same? > a very very few of us who think the generic kernel text has > crufted to the max over the years will. 10^(2..3) users who > just make kernels will not be happy. Most users probably never make another kernel, or at least don't know that's what they're doing. Of those that do, most probably won't see the kernel files, they'll just rebuild what's there. However, the next group of users will see the files and it would be very useful to the community as a whole for these files to be well-organized, and in line with NOTES. Doing this right will help reduce the number of questions asked related to this topic, and eliminate the dumber questions that would have been asked if people had read and understood the kernel file correctly, but got confused because of the cruftage. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles_at_skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)Received on Tue Feb 17 2004 - 16:31:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:43 UTC