On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 09:03:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Actually, Greg, a hell of a lot of people that don't track linux kernel
> > development do think that way. And there are always going to be people that
> > think that
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 09:03:10PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Actually, Greg, a hell of a lot of people that don't track linux kernel
development do think that way. And there are always going to be people that
think that way.
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
>
> > > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
> > > interfaces are tested as well
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
> > interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
> > pretty much impossible to test
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> This is version 2 of the patch. Address Gregs, Matts and Andis comments.
> Retain the word "exact" due to request of Greg. Use "the exact
> same" as per "Matt Mackall".
>
> * Change wording
> * Make a remark about necessary changes
This is version 2 of the patch. Address Gregs, Matts and Andis comments.
Retain the word "exact" due to request of Greg. Use "the exact
same" as per "Matt Mackall".
* Change wording
* Make a remark about necessary changes in interfaces
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
This is version 2 of the patch. Address Gregs, Matts and Andis comments.
Retain the word exact due to request of Greg. Use the exact
same as per Matt Mackall.
* Change wording
* Make a remark about necessary changes in interfaces
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
This is version 2 of the patch. Address Gregs, Matts and Andis comments.
Retain the word exact due to request of Greg. Use the exact
same as per Matt Mackall.
* Change wording
* Make a remark about necessary changes in
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
pretty much impossible to test for
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
interfaces are tested as well as
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible,
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:32:58 CST, Matt Mackall said:
> "Use the exact same C compiler." -> OK, idiomatic
> "Use the same exact C compiler." -> OK, idiomatic
> "Use the exactly same C compiler." -> very awkward
> "Use exactly the same C compiler." -> formally correct
"You are trapped in a maze of
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 16:14 +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > > Imo,
> > > "same exact C compiler" is just bad language, because C compilers are
> > > always "exact". "exactly same C compiler" would do.
> >
> > No, "exactly same C compiler" doesn't parse well in English.
>
> "Same exact C
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 16:14 +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
Imo,
same exact C compiler is just bad language, because C compilers are
always exact. exactly same C compiler would do.
No, exactly same C compiler doesn't parse well in English.
Same exact C compiler does not mean what
This is my last counter argument. Based on this I'll submit a new patch
that is less intrusive.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:15:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this. If you are reading documentation, you
> should at least be intertained a bit, and if you take the "flavor" of
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> CC'ing Andi as he commented also..
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:05PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > > * Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in
CC'ing Andi as he commented also..
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:05PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > * Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
> > * Improve wording
>
> Well, "improve" is a bit judgemental :)
The
This is my last counter argument. Based on this I'll submit a new patch
that is less intrusive.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 05:15:00AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
I strongly disagree with this. If you are reading documentation, you
should at least be intertained a bit, and if you take the flavor of
the
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:40:18PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
CC'ing Andi as he commented also..
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:48:05PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
* Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heikki Orsila) writes:
>
> +Some complain that kernel interfaces change too often for out-of-the-tree
> +modules, but this claim is false. Changing an interface can be delicate work,
> +and it can take significant amount of developer effort. Therefore, interfaces
> +are not
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> * Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
> * Improve wording
Well, "improve" is a bit judgemental :)
> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Executive Summary
> You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> * Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
> * Improve wording
Forgot to CC Greg.
- Heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
* Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
* Improve wording
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt | 16 ++--
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
* Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
* Improve wording
Forgot to CC Greg.
- Heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
* Improve wording
Signed-off-by: Heikki Orsila [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt | 16 ++--
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:59AM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
* Make a remark about avoiding unnecessary changes in interfaces
* Improve wording
Well, improve is a bit judgemental :)
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Executive Summary
You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heikki Orsila) writes:
+Some complain that kernel interfaces change too often for out-of-the-tree
+modules, but this claim is false. Changing an interface can be delicate work,
+and it can take significant amount of developer effort. Therefore, interfaces
+are not changed
28 matches
Mail list logo
