Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 07:45:17 -0700
> 
> > In any case, I don't think it's right to throw out this idea without
> > trying very hard to make it work, because the benefits are so clear.
> 
> I'm worried that it'll be deemed to "work" at a level of performance 
> much worse than what we have today.

Why would you worry that it'll be accepted then more easily than it's
accepted now?  The same arguments will be voiced in the future if the
solution's performance turns out to be insufficient.

> I don't see the unexec maintenance situation being desperate enough
> that we need to accept a big performance loss.

I very much disagree with this: the unexec maintenance situation is
actually so fragile that it could break at any moment, in the sense
that we could very easily get into having no people on board who know
enough about unexec to solve the next problem that will break it.  The
number of people who do know gets smaller and smaller with each year.
That is not healthy at all for the future of the project.