From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S266051AbUAFBG6 (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:06:58 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266053AbUAFBG6
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:06:58 -0500
Received: from kweetal.tue.nl ([131.155.3.6]:15621 "EHLO kweetal.tue.nl")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266051AbUAFBGz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:06:55 -0500
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:06:48 +0100
From: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>, Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>,
       Rob Love <rml@ximian.com>, rob@landley.net,
       Pascal Schmidt <der.eremit@email.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
Message-ID: <20040106020648.A1153@pclin040.win.tue.nl>
References: <20040104230104.A11439@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401041847370.2162@home.osdl.org> <20040105030737.GA29964@nevyn.them.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401041918260.2162@home.osdl.org> <20040105132756.A975@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401050749490.21265@home.osdl.org> <20040105205228.A1092@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401051224480.2153@home.osdl.org> <20040106001326.A1128@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401051522390.5737@home.osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401051522390.5737@home.osdl.org>; from torvalds@osdl.org on Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:32:03PM -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:32:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > Something reproducible is better.
> 
> And I've told you why reproducibility is a BAD THING
> 
> Basically, if you cannot 100% guarantee reproducibility,
> then the _appearance_ of reproducibility is literally a mistake.

OK. We now understand perfectly each others point of view.
It was a pleasure to provoke this discussion - can hardly
wait for 2.7 :-)

Andries