From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932350AbWDZCe7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:34:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932351AbWDZCe7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:34:59 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:11785 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932350AbWDZCe6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:34:58 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: C++ pushback Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:33:59 -0700 Message-ID: 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 IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:30:02 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:30:05 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Hahaha. So now, it's not good enough that they not ask you > > to do anything, > > they have to actively *prevent* you from choosing to waste time on their > > changes? > If you wish to interpret it that way, I won't prevent you :-) > Anyway -- what I meant is that even if somebody writes a patch changing > names to avoid collisions with C++, _merging_ such a patch could be > easily a waste of other people's time, especially when there is no > other advantage in merging such a patch (like if the reason is that > somebody wishes to port his closed-source driver to Linux [*]). > [*]: Not that I'm claiming that this is the case now, but it already > happened. You are being ambiguous here, possibly deliberately possibly through honest confusion and possibly because you know what you're saying and can't imagine how anyone else could not understand you. For example, does "merging" mean the process of making the kernel continue to compile cleanly with the patch applied? Or does "merging" mean the effort in maintaining your current level of understanding and proficiency with the kernel once the patch is in the mainline? If the former, you are totally correct. Nobody should work on merging a patch they don't believe in. If the latter, then see my criticism. You originally said: >>> As far as they intend to stay away from the main kernel tree, I don't >>> critize anybody. But for example renaming otherwise logically >>> named structure >>> members (`class' etc.) just for C++ compatibility _IS_ wasting time of >>> other people, who need to remember new names, review the patch and so on. If you don't believe the patch will benefit anyone, the review shouldn't take you more than a second or two. You should definitely say "I don't believe in this patch, I don't like C++ in the kernel, my review is that it should not go in" and that's it. Nobody is forcing you to work to adopt changes you don't believe in, and you should *not* do so as your part in keeping kernel code quality high. As for remembering new names, that's a load of complete crap and I find it hard to believe that you're raising the argument for honest reasons. DS