On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 01:37 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > old code is somewhat like an ancient building. Yes, it needs to be > kept in a good shape, but you won't replace bricks in it just because they are > old, will you?
No, but you do have to replace/repoint the mortar as it ages. Here in SoCal, we also have to do structural work on UnReinforced Masonry (URM) buildings to avoid loss of life when the ground moves underneath us. A small story: There's a guy a few blocks from me that wants to open a restaurant in a ~70 year old building. He's been fighting the city permitting process for over a year now because he rented a well built, but old, URM building with double courses of brick walls that had already had some structural improvements. http://la.eater.com/2014/3/18/6260975/brixton-restaurant-going-into-the-joker-in-santa-monica He added some windows where previously windows had been located but also had been covered and filled-in with over time. The place had been a dark, smoky dive bar. City went into a mode where any change to the building was unacceptable unless _every_ element of the building was brought up to new construction standards. It's a silly and expensive process for him and an overall loss for the city because of delays in creation of a tax-paying business. Santa Monica, my home town... Anyway, code isn't a lot like a building. It's easy to prove that some source code change doesn't cause a change in object output. It's not so easy in a physical structure. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/