From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262328AbTLWXAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:00:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262369AbTLWXAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:00:48 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71]:5999 "EHLO sj-iport-2.cisco.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262328AbTLWXAr (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:00:47 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Hua Zhong" To: "'Rob Love'" Cc: "'Jari Soderholm'" , Subject: RE: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:00:43 -0800 Organization: Cisco Systems Message-ID: <008901c3c9a8$97ac5c50$ca41cb3f@amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <1072218603.6987.57.camel@fur> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I do not know the time line of the flames vs. any decisions made by > Richard, though. I believe this is what I saw but I am not exactly sure: http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.3/0712.html And at that time Richard claimed he was still active. > And, yes, Al flames very hard and a bit rude -- but > I have never seen him wrong, that is for sure ;-) Me neither :-) and when he is not flaming me (which I have not got the chance yet), it's fun to read. But I hate him, you know, because I now tend to be influenced by the way he (and several others on this list) writes emails, and that's not nice in a corporate environment!! > So I cannot comment over _why_ defvs is unmaintained, but that is not > the point: either way, it stands that devfs is unmaintained. > That is a problem in and of itself. It's just my impression that around that time core developers had decided to replace devfs with a new model. If I were in ths same shoes, I would probably also stop maintaining it. Then 2 years later when somebody asks, the reason to replace my code shouldn't be "unmaintained". Just the technical reasons should be enough. :-) > Rob Love