On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 17:09, Alan Cox wrote:
> Look at history - if such a mess got in, it would never get sorted.
Instead of throwing around vague statements with little
context like "compost heap" and "such a mess", why don't
you spell out the specific design points of EVMS that you
disagree with. The advantages and disadvantages of
each point can then be discussed.
Mark
> On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 17:09, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Look at history - if such a mess got in, it would never get sorted.
>
> Instead of throwing around vague statements with little
> context like "compost heap" and "such a mess", why don't
> you spell out the specific design points of EVMS that you
> disagree with. The advantages and disadvantages of
> each point can then be discussed.
Yeah, but he is right in any case - look how the IDE mess of 2.5.x, which, frankly, I don't believe was ever as bad as people seem to be saying it was, has put people off testing 2.5.x. Instead they are waiting for Linus to type
mv linux-2.5.x linux-2.6.0
at which point they think that all remaining bugs will auto-magically correct themselves and the tree is one again safe to use. WRONG answer!
Simply from the point of view of not wanting to 'scare off' people from a whole tree, (which is so rediculous, I think I'll go and patent it), and as a result get less testing, we're better off trying to stop weirdness from getting in.
John.