On 25.07.2006 07:15, Chris Siebenmann wrote: > You write: > | [...] Therefore an attitude which says "go on developing that > | code out-of-tree, it's not ready for inclusion yet" is in direct > | contradiction with the foundations of the no-stable-API policy. > > I don't think that there's a contradiction, because I believe that what > the kernel developers are saying in general can be rewritten as: > > - we don't care about things that are deliberately kept > out of the kernel > *and* - we also don't care about code that does not meet quality > or relevance standards Actually, that *isn't* what I read regularly in lkml. Most statements of rejection by kernel developers do *not* read "we don't care about that, go away", but "this needs work here and there before we will accept it", which in a way is the opposite of "we don't care". But I am growing tired of this discussion. I tried to help, and instead drew fire myself. My own fault of course. I misjudged the situation and the emotional content of the ongoing dispute. I will now keep my tongue. Regards Tilman PS: I was forced to give this answer publicly because your given E-mail address wouldn't accept my private mail answer. My apologies if this is not what you wanted. -- Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: [email protected] Bonn, Germany Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits. Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Proposal: common kernel-wide GPIO interface
- Next by Date: [PATCH 18-rc3] Fix typos in /Documentation : 'Q'-'R'
- Previous by thread: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion
- Next by thread: [patch] gitignore quilt's files
- Index(es):
 |