Hi Arnaud, On 23.11.2010 18:36, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > [I will comment only on the Linux interface part, commenting on the > rest being pointless.] >
I am very happy that you agree with the rest of my mail and I am so glad that you realized that my points about forking are so profound that no further comments were warranted. This praise from you definitely brightened my day. > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > >> By the way, the Linux kernel employs a similar way to encourage upstream >> contribution: The internal interfaces of the kernel are changed often >> enough so that maintaining a module out of tree is really painful. >> > > Please stop spreading FUD. > It was not my intention to spread any fear or uncertainty or doubt (FUD). I asked others, and they were not overwhelmed by fear nor uncertainty nor doubt after reading my mail. If you were afraid or felt insecure after reading my mail, I wish to apologize sincerely and offer a virtual hug. > Please, point me a single commit in Linux tree saying: "Change > interface FUU to make BAR's life a hell supporting their fork". Linux > internal interfaces are changed for technical reason, not to make > outside developer's life a hell. > The net effect is the same. And here is what Greg Kroah-Hartman says about this: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119341446007202 Let me quote from Greg's mail: "Read Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for how we already make out-of-tree code developer's lives hell :)" Sincerely yours, Carl-Daniel _______________________________________________ Cocci mailing list [email protected] http://lists.diku.dk/mailman/listinfo/cocci (Web access from inside DIKUs LAN only)
