On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34:17AM +1030, David Newall wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > But Linux kernel development is not driven by people producing hot air > > about what they wish to see in the future, Linux kernel development is > > driven by people sending patches. > > Removal of code is not development. It's the opposite of development.
Removing dead code makes: - the kernel smaller, - the kernel faster and - makes it easier to maintain the non-dead code. All of these are considered useful by the people who actually contribute to the Linux kernel. > At one stage iBCS2 support DID work. Now it doesn't. Now there's an > argument that the remaining infrastructure should be removed. This is > the wrong direction to take. When did iBCS2 support work in a plain ftp.kernel.org kernel? And if you consider iBCS2 support that important I can only repeat that the language on Linux kernel are patches, not hot air. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/