Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:56:28PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Am Sonntag 29 Juli 2007 schrieb Sam Ravnborg: > > > > I > > > > actually also think that the communication between Ingo and Con > > > > could have been better especially when Ingo decided to write CFS > > > > while Con was still working hard on SD. > > > > > > You realize that Ingo posted his code for anyone to look at/comment > > > at about 48 hours after he started to work on CFS? > > > > Yes. > > So whats wrong then? > Ingo decides to do a better scheduler - to some extent inspired by > Con's work. And after 48 hours he publish first version that _anyone_ > can see and comment on. Whats wrong with that? > > Did you expect some lengthy discussion before the coding phase started > or what? > > Just trying to understand what you are arguing about. If I tried to rewrite a kernel subsystem - should I ever happen to dig that deep into kernel matters - while I actually know that someone already spent countless hours on exactly rewriting the exact same subsystem, I think I would have told that other developer about it as soon as I started coding on it. And if it just was a "Hi Con, I reconsidered the scheduling ideas again you brought to the Linux kernel world. Instead of using your scheduler tough I like to try to write a new one with fairness in mind, cause I think this, this and this can be improved upon. I would like to hear your ideas about that as soon as possible and would like you to contribute your ideas and also code, where you see hit. You can find the git / bazaar / whatever repository where I do my developments at: someurl. Regards, Ingo" I believe that Ingo did not meant any bad at all. I think its just the way he works, he likes to have code before saying anything. But still I believe before I'd go about replacing someone else code completely I would inform that developer beforehand, even if it then turns out not to be feasible at all. No need to anounce it to the world already, but I would have informed that developer. And aside from that there has been communication before and after this event that IMHO could have been "better". And thats not only targetted at Ingo. A view this whole issue as "everyone who was involved in it, actually was involved in it and has his share in its outcome". So everyone has a great chance to learn something out of it. (That includes me of course, too.) Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- References:
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Martin Steigerwald <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- From: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
- Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] sb1000: prevent a potential NULL pointer dereference in sb1000_dev_ioctl()
- Next by Date: Fwd: [PATCH] Reboot Dreamcast under software control
- Previous by thread: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- Next by thread: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
- Index(es):