Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!

["Mitchell Erblich" <erblichs@earthlink.net>]

"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
> 
>   at the risk of driving everyone here totally bonkers, i'm going to
> take one last shot at explaining what i was thinking of when i first
> proposed this whole "maturity level" thing.  and, just so you know,
> the major reason i'm so cranked up about this is that i'm feeling just
> a little territorial -- i was the one who first started nagging people
> to consider this idea, so i'm a little edgy when i see folks finally
> giving it some serious thought but appearing to get ready to implement
> it entirely incorrectly in a way that's going to ruin it irreparably
> and make it utterly useless.
> 
>   this isn't just about defining a single feature called "maturity".
> it's about defining a general mechanism so that you can add entirely
> new (what i call) "attributes" to kernel features.  one attribute
> could be "maturity", which could take one of a number of possible
> values.  another could be "status", with the same restrictions.
> heck, you could define the attribute "colour", and decide that various
> kernel features could be labelled as (at most) one of "red", "green"
> and "chartreuse."  that's what i mean by an "attribute", and
> attributes would have two critical and non-negotiable properties:
<<< snip>>>>
> 
>   but i hope i've flogged this thoroughly to the point where people
> can see what i'm driving at.  once you see (as in simon's patch) how
> to add the first attribute, it's trivial to simply duplicate that code
> to add as many more as you want.
> 
> rday
> 
> --
> ========================================================================
> Robert P. J. Day
> Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
> Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
> 
> http://crashcourse.ca
> ========================================================================
Robert Day,

        If I can interpret what you are asking about and changing it abit.

        Don't you think that Maturity can be defined ALSO, as the 
       number of known bugs and their priority / serverity against a 
       architecture dependent or independent item?

       Would this suffice and wouldn't it be easier to maintain?

       Mitchell Erblich
-
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/