Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:52:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:52:00 -0500 Received: from cs182083.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.182.83]:6784 "EHLO cs182083.pp.htv.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:51:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3C518D25.F8062F2B@welho.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 18:51:49 +0200 From: Mika Liljeberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17o1-ll-elv i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: White Paper on the Linux kernel VM? In-Reply-To: <3C50827F.F425DDF2@welho.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Writing about not writing docs wastes everybody's time. For the record, I would love to see some proper documentation on the current VM. While the code is indeed the ultimate reference, it does not yield readily to peer review. That said, I don't think much of the waterfall model. It tends to kill the enthusiasm and slow projects down to a crawl. The thing is to write the code, hone it until you're happy with it, and then document it. If the code isn't ready to document, it's not ready for peer review. Prior to that degree of readiness, too many brains plucking at the code just slows things down. On the other hand, if you leave out the documentation altogether you end up with developers arguing about who can't read whose code, instead of doing something useful. I seemed to touch the hearts of a surprising number of people with my thoughtless little remark. No permanent heart ache, I hope. :) MikaL - 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/