Now you are just trying to make it personal.
No, not at all. I am simply pointing to a characteristic trait in some
of your suggestions. Let me just reprise some points from the recent
discussion:
* You have proposed to create a "helenos" subdirectory in libc because
you don't like having some header files just in top-level libc.
* You have declined to remove function argument names from header files
because you don't like it.
* You have implemented your own sleep/wakeup methods because you don't
like our synchronization primitives.
* You have implemented your own lists because you don't like our lists.
* Now you propose to remove the manager fibrils because you don't like
them.
Do you see the pattern here? I certainly grant you the right to voice
these suggestions and defend them, but at least since many of the
criteria of yours are inherently subjective, please grant me the same
right to disagree with you, too, even if my disagreement is also based
on subjective criteria.
Like I have already written to you, I am not the gatekeeper or final
authority of HelenOS. Many people have the possibility to integrate even
your wildest ideas into mainline, thus pissing me off. Nobody has the
obligation to integrate any of your ideas, thus pissing you off. Never
getting pissed off is simply not an enforceable human right, getting
full agreement and support for one's ideas is not an enforceable human
right. We all need to cope with that.
I have asked you to point
out what part of my understanding of the system is incorrect. You have
not done so
Oh really? So I am just sending you poetry the entire time? The fact
that you don't agree with my arguments doesn't mean that I didn't send them.
Structuring of fibril/async implementation, which currently mixes together an
implementation of four conceptually independent subsystems, is one such
place of interest.
I simply don't agree with you that this part is broken and needs fixing.
Let me make myself more specific then. I believe the software
architecture in this case is flawed, it makes things confusing, and
limits future possibilities for improvement (because nobody will touch
the tangled mess).
Well, I believe that the software architecture in this case is fitting,
it is not confusing, it is designed with future improvements in mind and
your proposed changes will IMO make it worse. We can perhaps agree that
we disagree.
You have told in an earlier message you have about 20 different branches
at a time. Including this thing, I am working on 3. Does that means you
lack any kind of focus at all? I have to wonder.
The difference is that the majority of the ideas and code in my private
branches will never see the light of mainline. Only because some idea is
interesting and worth testing does not mean it is worth integrating.
If I want to push something into the mainline, I really try to make my
changes conservative and gradual.
Unless you want to pay me to do what you want, please stop criticizing
the way I use my time.
Fine. I am just pointing out that none of the non-VFS changes you have
recently proposed can help your VFS changes land sooner in the mainline.
In fact, I believe they are far from being necessary for your VFS
changes to happen.
but where I try to actually improve the implementation and realize my view, you
are just pointing out the
blatantly useless facts of how perfect the current code would be if it
"started" doing all this wonderful stuff.
Oh really? So your proposals to "improve the implementation" are
automatically genius while my pointing out that the current
implementation has some non-trivial motivation and is more suitable for
future extensions is automatically blatantly useless?
That's just great. Keep on being your own prosecutor, judge and jury ..
How about this? There was nothing broken with living in a cave and
hunting antilopes to survive. Yet we are not doing it anymore.
Sorry, but your analogy is IMHO totally unfitting. Your proposal for
removing fibril managers is not 'caves' vs. 'houses'.
Your proposal is 'a house with a front entrance and a balcony' vs. 'a
house with a front entrance, back entrance and a swimming pool'. The
plain possibility that something can be done differently does not
constitute that it must be an improvement and progress.
If you personally are
perfectly comfortable with the way something works now, don't take it to
mean there is no space for improvement.
I have never claimed that there is no space for improvement. I have just
said that I don't consider the changes you specifically propose
(removing the fibril managers) to be an improvement.
My focus is all right, thank you.
Yeah, people always say that :) There's a funny story I have read
recently (in Czech, sorry):
http://www.misantrop.info/pan-ix-a-funkcni-prokrastinace/
I do have a bunch of ideas stored for
various HelenOS code for when I find the time. I have been putting off
this fibril discussion for more than a year, maybe I will start
discussing another potential improvement in another year or so.
Feel free. I'll also feel free to comment on it, if you allow me so
kindly ..
M.D.
_______________________________________________
HelenOS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.modry.cz/listinfo/helenos-devel
