[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44CD2C76.2030700@imap.cc>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 00:02:30 +0200
From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Reiser4 Inclusion
On 25.07.2006 07:15, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
> You write:
> | [...] Therefore an attitude which says "go on developing that
> | code out-of-tree, it's not ready for inclusion yet" is in direct
> | contradiction with the foundations of the no-stable-API policy.
>
> I don't think that there's a contradiction, because I believe that what
> the kernel developers are saying in general can be rewritten as:
>
> - we don't care about things that are deliberately kept
> out of the kernel
> *and* - we also don't care about code that does not meet quality
> or relevance standards
Actually, that *isn't* what I read regularly in lkml. Most statements of
rejection by kernel developers do *not* read "we don't care about that,
go away", but "this needs work here and there before we will accept it",
which in a way is the opposite of "we don't care".
But I am growing tired of this discussion. I tried to help, and instead
drew fire myself. My own fault of course. I misjudged the situation and
the emotional content of the ongoing dispute. I will now keep my tongue.
Regards
Tilman
PS: I was forced to give this answer publicly because your given E-mail
address wouldn't accept my private mail answer. My apologies if this is
not what you wanted.
--
Tilman Schmidt E-Mail: tilman@...p.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (254 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists