On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Andi... it's quite nice to be able to leave some arch/i386
> > > stuff, and not carry it over to arch/x86-64.
> >
> > we can leave those few items in arch/x86 just as much. No need to keep
> > around a legacy tree for that.
>
> By extension it makes doing that sort of thing, in general, more difficult.
> Which is IMO not desirable.
I think it's *much* harder to carry legacy things around in an old tree
that almost nobody even uses any more (probably not true yet, but for most
of the main developers, I bet it will be true in a year). Especially one
that just duplicates 99% of the stuff.
There really isn't that much legacy crud. There are things like random
quirks, but every time I hear the (theoretical) argument about how much
time and effort we save by having it duplicated somewhere else, I think
about all the time we definitely waste by fixing the same bug twice (and
worry about the cases where we don't).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
