On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:46:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Gleb Natapov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:33:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > So no, your kind of cynical, defeatist sentiment about code quality is by
> > > no means true in my experience. Projects become ugly gooballs once
> > > maintainers stop caring enough.
> >
> > In case of Qemu it was other way around. Maintainers started caring too
> > late.
>
> Nah, i do not think it's ever too late to care.
>
> Example: arch/i386 - arch/x86_64/ was very messy for many, many years and we
> turned it around and can be proud of arch/x86/ today - but i guess i'm
> somewhat
> biased there ;-)
>
> In my experience it's entirely possible to turn a messy gooball into
> something
> you can be proud of - it's all reversible. Start small, with the core bits
> you
> care about most - then extend those concepts to other areas of the code base,
> gradually. There might be subsystems that will never turn around before
> becoming obsolete - that's not a big problem.
>
I do not disagree, but then qemu has a chance because maintainers do
care now, but not about all bits. And there should be willingness to
drop bits nobody cares about and I do not see this yet.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
