On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Are YOU willing to maintain it if Keith abandons it, though?
>
> That is pure FUD, shame on you.
FUD? Heh. No, it's a simple question and you haven't answered it.
> What I do not appreciate about Kai's effort is that it is divisive.
Read below. I don't have much time to waste on this topic, so I'll be
brief.
> There is exactly one valid objection I've seen to kbuild 2.5 inclusion,
> and that is the matter of breaking up the patch. Having done a quick
> tour through the whole patch set, I now know that there are some
> easy places to break it up:
And that's precisely the wrong way to break it up. You'll waste your time
and you'll probably hit Linus' bit bucket in no time. Thank you very much,
but I can split patches based on the files they touch by myself, I don't
need your help.
What you and other very vocal proponents of kbuild25 don't understand is
that you need break it up __functionally__. That is, add one feature at a
time. That way, good features can be added without much of a discussion,
and debatable features can be, well, debated.
Unfortunately, I don't see Keith doing this anytime soon. He's too much in
love with his baby to risk seeing parts of it being thrown away, so he's
taking an all-or-nothing attitude.
Fortunately, it is precisely what Kai is doing. He deserves a big THANKS
for doing it, not your silly bashing. I also saw some good work on this
from Sam Ravnborg on the list.
Anyway, EOT for me.
Ion
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
On Sunday 02 June 2002 06:03, you wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> What you and other very vocal proponents of kbuild25 don't understand is
> that you need break it up __functionally__. That is, add one feature at a
> time. That way, good features can be added without much of a discussion,
> and debatable features can be, well, debated.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see Keith doing this anytime soon. He's too much in
> love with his baby to risk seeing parts of it being thrown away, so he's
> taking an all-or-nothing attitude.
Fortunately, he's got help now:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?a=102296100300003&r=1&w=2
> Fortunately, it is precisely what Kai is doing. He deserves a big THANKS
> for doing it, not your silly bashing. I also saw some good work on this
> from Sam Ravnborg on the list.
If I got the impression that Kai was actually trying to work with the team,
I'd thank him for that. He appears to be doing just the opposite, and I
stand by my comment that that is divisive. He could accomplish the same
thing result he wants - patching up old kbuild - and bring parts of kbuild
2.5 into the tree, reducing the size of that patch *at the same time*,
instead of (apparently) trying to marginalize that work. That is what I'd
call cooperation.
We have a perfect - and rare - situation here where the two can coexist in
the same tree, and may the best and fastest eventually predominate. Let's
take advantage of that: let's have both in parallel for a while.
--
Daniel
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> FUD? Heh. No, it's a simple question and you haven't answered it.
It fit happily into the "noone is willing to maintain kb25" cliche.
BTW, I think I will release a patch against linux 0.01 which will
introduce all the features of the current linus tree in a few minutes. Why
calling it linux 2.5.19? It has the features! Yet I'm patching it, if you
want piecemeal, grab the list.
> And that's precisely the wrong way to break it up. You'll waste your time
> and you'll probably hit Linus' bit bucket in no time. Thank you very much,
> but I can split patches based on the files they touch by myself, I don't
> need your help.
I split it so that you can merge some stuff in and it has no effect. You
can even merge the whole thing in with no effect as long as you're using
the old Makefile,v 2.4.
> What you and other very vocal proponents of kbuild25 don't understand is
> that you need break it up __functionally__. That is, add one feature at a
> time. That way, good features can be added without much of a discussion,
> and debatable features can be, well, debated.
I'm not exactly german. I'm in germany, currently, but what does it tell
you? And before you ask, I never answer questions about my nationality.
And anyway, they don't belong to linux-kernel in any way.
For the most features you'll at first need the core, or you merge it in,
and later pull it from the kernel again to introduce it with core support.
Diffing into every single feature _can_ be done, but I'll be kicked off
the list if I post them one by one.
> Unfortunately, I don't see Keith doing this anytime soon. He's too much in
> love with his baby to risk seeing parts of it being thrown away, so he's
> taking an all-or-nothing attitude.
It's more or less because it is quite silly to post every single feature,
and lethal for kernel development on this list.
> Fortunately, it is precisely what Kai is doing. He deserves a big THANKS
> for doing it, not your silly bashing. I also saw some good work on this
> from Sam Ravnborg on the list.
See my statement about linux-0.01.
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 01:58:10AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
[cc: list trimmed]
> I split it so that you can merge some stuff in and it has no effect. You
> can even merge the whole thing in with no effect as long as you're using
> the old Makefile,v 2.4.
Piecemal is not about splitting the patch in small bits only.
It's about adding features one-by-one, and about fixing bugs one-by-one.
Forget the story that current kbuild-2.5 needs the core in order to
enable any functionality.
A small list of stuff independent of the core stuff:
o New defconfig target
o New installable target
o Replacement of installkernel script with a couple of commandline options
o asmoffset stuff, allthough not used for i386 at present
o The idea behind _shipped prefix on shipped files
o randconfig, warnings in split-include, mkdep, 2048 symbol limit, dbl qoutes
o Quit output, making warnings more visible
o etc.
I think Linus did not want to take a patch that changed too much, and
thats what kbuild-2.5 does. This does not change when you split it up
file by file.
Sam
On Sunday 02 June 2002 16:03, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 01:58:10AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> [cc: list trimmed]
>
> > I split it so that you can merge some stuff in and it has no effect. You
> > can even merge the whole thing in with no effect as long as you're using
> > the old Makefile,v 2.4.
>
> Piecemal is not about splitting the patch in small bits only.
> It's about adding features one-by-one, and about fixing bugs one-by-one.
You mean, fixing the bugs you introduced by trying to add it piecemeal?
How about breaking it up where it makes sense to do so, and not breaking
it up where it's silly.
If you have a specific suggestion about which part should be broken out,
feel free to provide details.
--
Daniel
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:38:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> You mean, fixing the bugs you introduced by trying to add it piecemeal?
> How about breaking it up where it makes sense to do so, and not breaking
> it up where it's silly.
Can we agree that it makes sense to add features one-by-one when
they are independent?
If thats the case then it is a simple matter of looking through the
features already present in kbuild-2.5.
Then to compare those features with the work done by Kai.
If the feature is worth it and can be introduced without the core,
then introduce it in kbuild-2.4.
This will make this specific feature visible to many people, and
those who feel against it can speak up.
> If you have a specific suggestion about which part should be broken out,
> feel free to provide details.
I already gave a list of features that could be broken out. Do you request
more information than that?
I already submitted 4 patches digged out from kbuild-2.5, one of them
introducing a bug. The bug was present in kbuild-2.5!
This bug was easy to spot since the patch was selfcontained, but
within several thousands of kbuild-2.5 source lines it would have been missed
most probarly.
Sam
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Can we agree that it makes sense to add features one-by-one when
> they are independent?
No, as that means introducing a buggy version of kbuild-2.5 to fix the
bugs afterwards. Sure, there are bugs, but they can be fixed either. I
don't need to reintroduce all the kbuild-2.4 bugs therefor.
The one thing you all seem to have got wrong is that kbuild-2.5 does not
overwrite kbuild-2.4 but exist in parallel to it. So there's nothing to
fix, we could just introduce all the features one by one, but that means
they all will only function after the last patch, which will be some kind
of "activation".
For me, I don't purposely introduce bugs.
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
On Sunday 02 June 2002 16:56, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 04:38:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > You mean, fixing the bugs you introduced by trying to add it piecemeal?
> > How about breaking it up where it makes sense to do so, and not breaking
> > it up where it's silly.
>
> Can we agree that it makes sense to add features one-by-one when
> they are independent?
Oh absolutely, and have you looked at the current factoring?
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?a=102296100300003&r=1&w=2
This is still being improved, of course.
> If thats the case then it is a simple matter of looking through the
> features already present in kbuild-2.5.
> Then to compare those features with the work done by Kai.
Well, actually a lot of the work done by Kai is simply importing
portions of Keith's work that break out easily, which is purely
duplication of effort, since such work is already in progress. In
fact it creates more work, because then we have to go parse Kai's
patches and find out what he submitted, then see if it gets applied
so we can mark it 'applied' in the list. This is a real waste of
time, and did I mention, it's divisive?
> If the feature is worth it and can be introduced without the core,
> then introduce it in kbuild-2.4.
> This will make this specific feature visible to many people, and
> those who feel against it can speak up.
>
> > If you have a specific suggestion about which part should be broken out,
> > feel free to provide details.
>
> I already gave a list of features that could be broken out. Do you request
> more information than that?
Yes, those seem to be good suggestions. What I'd suggest is: import
enough of kbuild 2.5 to support the feature (in some case nothing
needs to be imported), then make it work also for old kbuild (in
some cases that will require no work. This I'd call cooperation,
which would look good on everybody involved.
I'm not working on this, please pass your specific suggestions to:
Thunder from the hill <[email protected]>
> I already submitted 4 patches digged out from kbuild-2.5, one of them
> introducing a bug. The bug was present in kbuild-2.5!
> This bug was easy to spot since the patch was selfcontained, but
> within several thousands of kbuild-2.5 source lines it would have been missed
> most probarly.
Good point. The bright side of all this is, we're getting more eyeballs
than ever actually looking at the code, and chances are, even thinking
about how it works.
By the way, kbuild 2.5 running on 2.4.19-pre9 turns in a build time of
5.4 seconds when nothing needs to be rebuilt and 8.3 seconds after
touch fs/ext2/inode.c, on my 2 x 1 GHz compile box. And so far, hasn't
embarrassed itself once.
--
Daniel
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> I think Linus did not want to take a patch that changed too much, and
> thats what kbuild-2.5 does. This does not change when you split it up
> file by file.
See appended. We have only 27 files which actually _changed_, the rest is
_created_. I can submit patches for those 27 changed files, but they still
don't make sense without the created files.
Regards,
Thunder
Creating Config.help
Creating Config.in
Creating Documentation/DocBook/Makefile.in
Creating Documentation/cdrom/Makefile.in
Creating Documentation/kbuild/kbuild-2.5-db.ps
Creating Documentation/kbuild/kbuild-2.5-db.txt
Creating Documentation/kbuild/kbuild-2.5-db.vcg
Creating Documentation/kbuild/kbuild-2.5.txt
Creating Documentation/kbuild/random.txt
Creating Makefile-2.5
Creating Makefile.in
Creating Makefile.orig
Creating arch/i386/Makefile.defs.config
Creating arch/i386/Makefile.defs.noconfig
Creating arch/i386/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/Makefile.orig
Creating arch/i386/asm-offsets.c
Creating arch/i386/boot/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/boot/bbootsect.S
Creating arch/i386/boot/bsetup.S
Creating arch/i386/boot/compressed/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/boot/config.install-2.5
Creating arch/i386/boot/rules-2.5.cml
Creating arch/i386/boot/tools/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/kernel/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/lib/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/math-emu/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/mm/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/pci/Makefile.in
Creating arch/i386/vmlinux.lds.S
Creating arch/s390/Makefile.defs.config
Creating arch/s390/Makefile.defs.noconfig
Creating arch/s390/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/Makefile.orig
Creating arch/s390/asm-offsets.c
Creating arch/s390/boot/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/boot/config.install-2.5
Creating arch/s390/kernel/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/lib/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/math-emu/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/mm/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390/vmlinux.lds.S
Creating arch/s390x/Makefile.defs.config
Creating arch/s390x/Makefile.defs.noconfig
Creating arch/s390x/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390x/Makefile.orig
Creating arch/s390x/asm-offsets.c
Creating arch/s390x/boot/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390x/boot/config.install-2.5
Creating arch/s390x/kernel/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390x/lib/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390x/mm/Makefile.in
Creating arch/s390x/vmlinux.lds.S
Creating arch/sparc64/Makefile.defs.config
Creating arch/sparc64/Makefile.defs.noconfig
Creating arch/sparc64/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/asm-offsets.c
Creating arch/sparc64/boot/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/boot/config.install-2.5
Creating arch/sparc64/boot/rules-2.5.cml
Creating arch/sparc64/kernel/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/lib/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/math-emu/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/mm/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/prom/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/solaris/Makefile.in
Creating arch/sparc64/vmlinux.lds.S
Creating drivers/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acorn/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acorn/block/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acorn/char/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acorn/char/defkeymap-acorn.c_shipped
Creating drivers/acorn/char/defkeymap-acorn.c_sum
Creating drivers/acorn/net/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acorn/scsi/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/debugger/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/dispatcher/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/events/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/executer/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/hardware/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/namespace/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/parser/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/resources/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/tables/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/acpi/utilities/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/atm/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/base/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/block/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/block/paride/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/bluetooth/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/cdrom/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/agp/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/defkeymap.c_shipped
Creating drivers/char/defkeymap.c_sum
Creating drivers/char/drm/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/ftape/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/ftape/compressor/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/ftape/lowlevel/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/ftape/zftape/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/ip2/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/mwave/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/pcmcia/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/char/qtronixmap.c_shipped
Creating drivers/char/qtronixmap.c_sum
Creating drivers/char/rio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/dio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/fc4/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/hotplug/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/i2c/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/ide/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/ieee1394/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/input/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/input/gameport/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/input/joystick/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/input/serio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/act2000/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/capi/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/divert/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/eicon/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/hardware/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/hardware/avm/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/hisax/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/hysdn/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/i4l/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/icn/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/isdnloop/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/pcbit/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/sc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/isdn/tpam/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/macintosh/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/md/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/media/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/media/radio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/media/video/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/message/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/message/fusion/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/message/i2o/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/misc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/mtd/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/mtd/chips/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/mtd/devices/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/mtd/maps/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/appletalk/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/arcnet/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/e100/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/e1000/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/fc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/hamradio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/hamradio/soundmodem/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/irda/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/pcmcia/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/sk98lin/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/skfp/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/tokenring/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/tulip/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/wan/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/wan/lmc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/net/wireless/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/nubus/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/parport/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/pci/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/pcmcia/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/pnp/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/s390/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/s390/block/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/s390/char/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/s390/misc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/s390/net/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/sbus/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/sbus/audio/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/sbus/char/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/scsi/53c700_d.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/53c700_sum
Creating drivers/scsi/53c700_u.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/53c7xx_d.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/53c7xx_sum
Creating drivers/scsi/53c7xx_u.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/53c8xx_d.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/53c8xx_sum
Creating drivers/scsi/53c8xx_u.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/scsi/pcmcia/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/scsi/pcmcia/aha152x_inc.c
Creating drivers/scsi/pcmcia/fdomain_inc.c
Creating drivers/scsi/pcmcia/qlogicfas_inc.c
Creating drivers/scsi/sim710_d.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/sim710_sum
Creating drivers/scsi/sim710_u.h_shipped
Creating drivers/scsi/sym53c8xx_2/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/sgi/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/sgi/char/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/tc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/tc/lk201-map.c_shipped
Creating drivers/tc/lk201-map.c_sum
Creating drivers/telephony/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/class/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/core/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/host/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/image/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/input/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/media/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/misc/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/net/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/serial/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/usb/storage/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/video/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/video/aty/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/video/matrox/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/video/riva/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/video/sis/Makefile.in
Creating drivers/zorro/Makefile.in
Creating fs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/adfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/affs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/autofs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/autofs4/Makefile.in
Creating fs/bfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/coda/Makefile.in
Creating fs/cramfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/devfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/devpts/Makefile.in
Creating fs/driverfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/efs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/exportfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ext2/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ext3/Makefile.in
Creating fs/fat/Makefile.in
Creating fs/freevxfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/hfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/hpfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/intermezzo/Makefile.in
Creating fs/isofs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/jbd/Makefile.in
Creating fs/jffs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/jffs2/Makefile.in
Creating fs/jfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/lockd/Makefile.in
Creating fs/minix/Makefile.in
Creating fs/msdos/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ncpfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/nfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/nfsd/Makefile.in
Creating fs/nls/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ntfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/openpromfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/partitions/Makefile.in
Creating fs/proc/Makefile.in
Creating fs/qnx4/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ramfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/reiserfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/romfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/smbfs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/sysv/Makefile.in
Creating fs/udf/Makefile.in
Creating fs/ufs/Makefile.in
Creating fs/umsdos/Makefile.in
Creating fs/vfat/Makefile.in
Creating have_config
Creating init/Makefile.in
Creating ipc/Makefile.in
Creating kernel/Makefile.in
Creating lib/Makefile.in
Creating lib/zlib_deflate/Makefile.in
Creating lib/zlib_inflate/Makefile.in
Creating mm/Makefile.in
Creating net/802/Makefile.in
Creating net/802/pseudo/Makefile.in
Creating net/802/transit/Makefile.in
Creating net/8021q/Makefile.in
Creating net/Makefile.in
Creating net/appletalk/Makefile.in
Creating net/atm/Makefile.in
Creating net/ax25/Makefile.in
Creating net/bluetooth/Makefile.in
Creating net/bridge/Makefile.in
Creating net/core/Makefile.in
Creating net/decnet/Makefile.in
Creating net/econet/Makefile.in
Creating net/ethernet/Makefile.in
Creating net/ipv4/Makefile.in
Creating net/ipv4/netfilter/Makefile.in
Creating net/ipv6/Makefile.in
Creating net/ipv6/netfilter/Makefile.in
Creating net/ipx/Makefile.in
Creating net/irda/Makefile.in
Creating net/irda/ircomm/Makefile.in
Creating net/irda/irlan/Makefile.in
Creating net/irda/irnet/Makefile.in
Creating net/khttpd/Makefile.in
Creating net/lapb/Makefile.in
Creating net/netlink/Makefile.in
Creating net/netrom/Makefile.in
Creating net/packet/Makefile.in
Creating net/rose/Makefile.in
Creating net/sched/Makefile.in
Creating net/sunrpc/Makefile.in
Creating net/unix/Makefile.in
Creating net/wanrouter/Makefile.in
Creating net/x25/Makefile.in
Creating scripts/Makefile-2.5
Creating scripts/Makefile.in
Creating scripts/find_srcfile
Creating scripts/get_one_config
Creating scripts/include_list.awk
Creating scripts/kwhich
Creating scripts/lilo_new_kernel
Creating scripts/lxdialog/Makefile-2.5
Creating scripts/mdbm/COPYING
Creating scripts/mdbm/README
Creating scripts/mdbm/byte_order.c
Creating scripts/mdbm/common.h
Creating scripts/mdbm/debug.c
Creating scripts/mdbm/hash.c
Creating scripts/mdbm/mdbm.c
Creating scripts/mdbm/mdbm.h
Creating scripts/mdbm/mtst.c
Creating scripts/mdbm/tune.h
Creating scripts/pp_db.c
Creating scripts/pp_db.h
Creating scripts/pp_dbdump.c
Creating scripts/pp_env.c
Creating scripts/pp_makefile.h
Creating scripts/pp_makefile1.c
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2.c
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse.l
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse.lex.c_shipped
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse.tab.c_shipped
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse.tab.h_shipped
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse.y
Creating scripts/pp_makefile2_parse_sum
Creating scripts/pp_makefile4.c
Creating scripts/pp_makefile5.c
Creating scripts/shadow.pl
Creating sound/Makefile.in
Creating sound/arm/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/ioctl32/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/oss/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/seq/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/seq/instr/Makefile.in
Creating sound/core/seq/oss/Makefile.in
Creating sound/drivers/Makefile.in
Creating sound/drivers/mpu401/Makefile.in
Creating sound/drivers/opl3/Makefile.in
Creating sound/i2c/Makefile.in
Creating sound/i2c/l3/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/ad1816a/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/ad1848/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/cs423x/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/es1688/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/gus/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/opti9xx/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/sb/Makefile.in
Creating sound/isa/wavefront/Makefile.in
Creating sound/oss/Makefile.in
Creating sound/oss/cs4281/Makefile.in
Creating sound/oss/dmasound/Makefile.in
Creating sound/oss/emu10k1/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/ac97/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/ali5451/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/cs46xx/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/emu10k1/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/korg1212/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/nm256/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/rme9652/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/trident/Makefile.in
Creating sound/pci/ymfpci/Makefile.in
Creating sound/ppc/Makefile.in
Creating sound/synth/Makefile.in
Creating sound/synth/emux/Makefile.in
Creating symbols-2.5.cml
Updating Documentation/kbuild/00-INDEX
Updating Makefile
Updating arch/i386/Makefile
Updating arch/s390/Makefile
Updating arch/s390x/Makefile
Updating arch/sparc64/kernel/entry.S
Updating arch/sparc64/kernel/etrap.S
Updating arch/sparc64/kernel/head.S
Updating arch/sparc64/kernel/trampoline.S
Updating arch/sparc64/kernel/traps.c
Updating arch/sparc64/lib/VIScopy.S
Updating arch/sparc64/lib/VIScsum.S
Updating arch/sparc64/lib/VIScsumcopy.S
Updating arch/sparc64/lib/VIScsumcopyusr.S
Updating arch/sparc64/lib/VISsave.S
Updating arch/sparc64/solaris/entry64.S
Updating drivers/scsi/script_asm.pl
Updating include/asm-sparc64/system.h
Updating include/asm-sparc64/thread_info.h
Updating include/linux/module.h
Updating scripts/Configure
Updating scripts/Menuconfig
Updating scripts/kernel-doc
Updating scripts/mkdep.c
Updating scripts/split-include.c
Updating scripts/tkparse.c
Updating scripts/tkparse.h
Created: 381 files, patched: 27 files
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
On Sun, Jun 02, 2002 at 05:16:34PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Can we agree that it makes sense to add features one-by-one when
> > they are independent?
>
> Oh absolutely, and have you looked at the current factoring?
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?a=102296100300003&r=1&w=2
>
> This is still being improved, of course.
I have looked at the above factoring, which was only a file factoring,
neither bug-fix factoring, nor feature factoring.
IMHO this is not the way kbuild-2.5 ever get included in the kernel.
> What I'd suggest is: import
> enough of kbuild 2.5 to support the feature (in some case nothing
> needs to be imported), then make it work also for old kbuild (in
> some cases that will require no work. This I'd call cooperation,
> which would look good on everybody involved.
Again wrong approah. Extend kbuild-2.4 with the features, tweak them until
they actually meet the requirements and then on to the next step.
Obviously the dependency step is huge, but the point is that there is
steps before and after this.
Sam
Hi,
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Again wrong approah. Extend kbuild-2.4 with the features, tweak them
> until they actually meet the requirements and then on to the next step.
> Obviously the dependency step is huge, but the point is that there is
> steps before and after this.
You keep missing the fact that you have kbuild-2.4 and kbuild-2.5 in the
same tree. I told you I won't introduce bugs in order to fix them! I'm NOT
Microsoft!
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Again wrong approah. Extend kbuild-2.4 with the features, tweak them
> > until they actually meet the requirements and then on to the next step.
> > Obviously the dependency step is huge, but the point is that there is
> > steps before and after this.
>
> You keep missing the fact that you have kbuild-2.4 and kbuild-2.5 in the
> same tree. I told you I won't introduce bugs in order to fix them! I'm NOT
> Microsoft!
And you keep missing the fact that having both in the tree doesn't solve
anything. Bugs are not a problem in the development series, bugs are
found and fixed.
However, having both in the tree can mean only one of a few things:
1. kbuild24 will slowly become unmaintained
2. kbuild25 will slowly become unmaintained
3. both will be partially broken for certain newly added targets (e.g.
author FOO adds driver BAR and only adjusts only of the kbuilds for his
driver, and you end up with kbuild24 building certain modules and
kbuild25 building certain other modules, ugh)
4. everybody will have to put in double work to update both kbuilds, test
changes, etc.
None of the above looks acceptable, IMNHO.
You need to break it up FEATURE BY FEATURE, that's the only way it will go
in. Then you add one feature to the existing kbuild, test, release, get
bug reports, fix bugs, add the next feature, rinse, repeat.
Also, don't say 'well you need the core to do this and that', it only shows
that you don't understand the core and you're treating it like a black box.
Once you do understand it, you'll see there are many ways to break it up
feature-wise.
Ion [swearing this is his last reply in this thread]
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
Hi,
No matter if ya'll reply, but a few things to be mentioned:
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Ion Badulescu wrote:
> However, having both in the tree can mean only one of a few things:
5. the better will stay, the worse will be pulled from the tree.
> Also, don't say 'well you need the core to do this and that', it only shows
> that you don't understand the core and you're treating it like a black box.
> Once you do understand it, you'll see there are many ways to break it up
> feature-wise.
But other features require parts of the thing you call core which won't
get in because they look silly without the stuff that is using it. Who
needs a loose mdbm?
Regards,
Thunder
--
ship is leaving right on time | Thunder from the hill at ngforever
empty harbour, wave goodbye |
evacuation of the isle | free inhabitant not directly
caveman's paintings drowning | belonging anywhere
On Sun, 2 Jun 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Can we agree that it makes sense to add features one-by-one when
> > they are independent?
>
> Oh absolutely, and have you looked at the current factoring?
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?a=102296100300003&r=1&w=2
>
> This is still being improved, of course.
Actually, I was about to answer that issue in a reply to the mail by
Thunder, where he said that he can do a lot of patches, which do not have
any effect. Sam did actually state it already, it's not about adding which
have no effect, it's about patches which do change one thing at a time. N
patches which don't change anything and then number N+1 which changes
everything doesn't help the situation at all.
> Well, actually a lot of the work done by Kai is simply importing
> portions of Keith's work that break out easily, which is purely
> duplication of effort, since such work is already in progress. In
> fact it creates more work, because then we have to go parse Kai's
> patches and find out what he submitted, then see if it gets applied
> so we can mark it 'applied' in the list. This is a real waste of
> time, and did I mention, it's divisive?
Well, thanks. Maybe you have an example of what you mean above? If I take
other people's work, I credit them, and I don't think I did so far at all,
but definitely not "a lot".
I will surely pick pieces, though - this is what this process is all
about.
Anyway, since you don't understand anything about the internals of the
kbuild process at all (neither kbuild-2.4 nor 2.5), as you now proved
publically multiple times, but are just aiming at proving your abilities
in making politics on l-k, don't expect me to answer any further mails on
this (and save yourself the effort to reply to this one, but I know you
won't).
--Kai