mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
To: Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.19 - What's up with the kernel build?
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 01:40:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E17DD3f-0006q5-00@starship> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CF540F8.6000802@mandrakesoft.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205291827130.23147-100000@xanadu.home> <20020529230657.GB2851@louise.pinerecords.com>

On Thursday 30 May 2002 01:06, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > > Well, I really like Keith's kbuild25 too, but Linus said (at least once) 
> > > he wanted an evolution to a new build system... not an unreasonable 
> > > request to at least consider.  Despite Keith's quality of code (again -- 
> > > I like kbuild25), his 3 patch submissions seemed a lot like ultimatums, 
> > > very "take it or leave it dammit".  Not the best way to win friends and 
> > > influence people.

OK that's true, but think: how much work has Keith put into this?  How much
did he or his employer get paid?  And how many times has he been told to go
off and fix something, as a prelude to getting the thing in?  The last time
it was the first-time build speed.  He went away and came back with a *huge*
improvement, even more than what people were demanding.  You'd think that
would be enough.

Keith has to do *two* full time jobs as long as the patch isn't merged:
developing the patch itself and tracking the whole 2.5 tree as it (rapidly)
evolves.

> > > If Keith is indeed leaving it, I'm hoping someone will maintain it, or 
> > > work with Kai to integrate it into 2.5.x.
> > 
> > When I suggested to Keith he push kbuild25 the way Linus likes, he (Keith) 
> > considered that was a "stupid comment" and that he'd ignore stupid comments.

It is of course always regrettable when one is so rash as to call a stupid
comment a stupid comment ;-)

> What remains to be answered is, how does one split a system of a myriad of
> build rule files into a reasonable amount of small patches.
> 
> Of course, you could have hundreds of patches each consisting of a single
> Makefile.in, but how would that make the reviewing/integrating easier? In
> the end you'd end up reading the same input, only you'd complement it by
> frequently pressing your favorite show-me-the-next-mail key.

I thought BitKeeper was supposed to be able to deal with precisely this sort
of merge problem.  In this case, splitting the thing up just seems
unnatural, and a dubious use of time.

-- 
Daniel

  reply	other threads:[~2002-05-29 23:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-05-29 20:22 Kai Germaschewski
2002-05-29 20:50 ` Paul P Komkoff Jr
2002-05-29 20:58   ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-29 22:38     ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-29 22:56       ` Thunder from the hill
2002-05-29 23:18         ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-29 23:29           ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-29 23:06       ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-29 23:40         ` Daniel Phillips [this message]
2002-05-30  0:17           ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-30  0:36             ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-30  0:42               ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-30  0:47                 ` Robert Love
2002-06-03  6:49                 ` Rusty Russell
2002-05-30  2:23               ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-30  2:30                 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-30  2:00     ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-05-30  2:17       ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-30  8:45       ` Jeff Garzik
2002-05-30  8:54         ` Erik Andersen
2002-05-30  9:01           ` Russell King
2002-05-30  9:32             ` Erik Andersen
2002-05-30 13:22         ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-05-29 22:14 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-29 23:22 ` Tom Rini
2002-05-29 22:45   ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-30  0:33     ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-06-01  3:01 ` Kernel compile quiet mode Kevin O'Connor
2002-06-01  7:34   ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-06-01 15:08     ` Kevin O'Connor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=E17DD3f-0006q5-00@starship \
    --to=phillips@bonn-fries.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nico@cam.org \
    --cc=szepe@pinerecords.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®