Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:09:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:09:48 -0500 Received: from dentin.eaze.net ([216.228.128.151]:17937 "EHLO xirr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 10:09:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:15:43 -0600 From: SodaPop Message-Id: <200202181515.g1IFFh614020@xirr.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Disgusted with kbuild developers Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I can't believe you people, even if you are high level kernel maintainers. The most major complaints I see against CML2 are that 'the behaviour is different from CML1' and 'CML2 has a whole bunch of "features" too which will be shoved down our throats'. Duh! That was the freaking point! Granted I'm not a kernel hacking expert, but I've been building my own kernels since 1995 and I see definite value in having the side effects and grouping stuff in CML2. I also see significant value in having the symbol set and rules provably coherent. You guys change the low level kernel interfaces all the time. You change module interfaces out from underneath people every other month. You depreciate malloc.h and replace it with slab.h and don't so much as give it a second thought, yet you bitch up a storm about how the changes in CML2 behaviour are unacceptable? You guys force changes down the throats of other people all the time. Well now, in my lowly opinion, it's time for you to do what everyone else is already used to - choke it down, and comfort yourself by saying 'it was the right thing to do.' Looking forward to seeing CML2 in 2.5, -dennis T - 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/