linux-kernel - Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:52:52 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
CC:	"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007, you wrote:
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>
>>>> Feature deprecation and removal is a very amorphous concept that
>>>> does not fit well at all into Kconfig markers, unlike
>>>> experimental/broken.
> 
> The current approach (text file) is:
> * centralized
> * requires manual testing of all future changes
> * totally invisible to the end-users (higly frustrating for them when
>   they learn about scheduled changes when things brake)
> 
> The proposed approach (Kconfig) is:
> * distributed
> * allows partial automatic testing of future changes
> * could be make visible to the end-users by smart use of macros/inlines
>   and adding kernel parameter (would make users informed and encourage
>   them to help with the development)
> 
>>> and, as i've said before, i disagree.  while one might debate what
>> Feel free to disagree -- I am describing how things play out on a day to 
>> day basis.  In essence you are disagreeing with reality.
> 
> Part of the problem is that many people (including developers) learn about
> things being deprecated/obsoleted after they are actually removed.
> 
> Of course things are not black and white and common sense is required but
> moving in the Kconfig direction is an improvement IMO and could speed up
> the development in the long-term.
> 
> BTW There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the reality and trying
> to change it.  If everybody would conform to the reality there will be no
> progress at all... ;)

I have --no problem-- with changes that enable people to disable 
deprecated/obsolete stuff, just like experimental and broken stuff.

I do have a problem with mischaracterization of today's reality.

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/