Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:49 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > OK...  Then the idea is to dynamically redirect the symbolic link
> > to include/linux-srt or include/linux-srt that you mentioned in your
> > previous email, or is the symlink serving some other purpose?
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that rt patches shouldn't touch the existing
> codebase. Instead, functionality having to do with rt should be
> integrated in separate directories, and depending the way you
> configure the kernel, include/linux would point to either
> include/linux-srt or include/linux-hrt, much like include/asm
> points to one of inclux/asm-*.


I think this is mistake. Projects that create separation like this are
begging for the community to reject them. I see this as a design for
one, instead of design for many mistake. From what I've seen, a project
would want to do as much clean integration as possible.

Daniel

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/