On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Dirk Schoebel wrote:
as long as the maintainer follows the kernel development things can be
left in, if the maintainer can't follow anymore they are taken out quite
fast again. (This statement mostly counts for parts of the kernel where a
choice is possible or the coding overhead of making such choice possible
is quite low.)
This is just not good engineering.
It is axiomatic that it is easy to add code, but difficult to remove code.
It takes -years- to remove code that no one uses. Long after the maintainer
disappears, the users (and bug reports!) remain.
I'll point out that the code that's so hard to remove is the code that
exposes an API to userspace.
code that's an internal implementation (like a couple of the things being
discussed) gets removed much faster.
It is also axiomatic that adding code, particularly core code, often
exponentially increases complexity.
this is true and may be a valid argument (depending on how large and how
intrusive the proposed patch is)
David Lang
-
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]
