Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch and linux 2.7

[Tom Lord]

    > From: address@hidden

    > On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:18:27AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:

    > > However, I think we need to be cautious on a few points:

    > > 1) We shouldn't presume to know more than we know.

    > >   For example, it's one thing to say "we ought to improve some of the
    > >   error messages" but another thing entirely to say "in order to 
    > >   promote kernel-project use of arch, we ought to improve some of the
    > >   error messages."

    > Wasn't this thread on; "if we propose arch for kernel; we should finish 
this
    > first or we don't stand a change..." ?

    > That was wat I got from it anyhow..

"Finish this first" is an underspecified concept.

Given the unbounded resources, I'm extremely confident I could go on
"finishing" arch for the next four decades.

A more practical goal than "finish" is "satisfy actual needs".

Now, as reasonable as "clean up certain error messages" is as a goal,
in general, "things zander thinks up to add to the list" is not
"things that satisfy actual needs" and not at all obviously related to
any essentially political goal wrt the kernel project.  There's
overlap -- there's good reason to make the lists -- but let's not
overinterpret them.

One scenario that would make sense for the kernel might be:

        a) Linus decides to move to a free software system.

        b) Linus kvetches about error messages.

        c) Since fixing the error messages isn't that big a deal,
           it's certainly an option.

        d) Someone decides to provide resources to make it happen
           (whether unpaid-volunteer hacking or money).

But this sentiment that "Well, we want the kernel, we just _can't_ go
to the kernel with the error messages in their current state, hey
let's work on error messages...."  --- it simply doesn't make any
sense to me.

[As a point of fact, I'm actually making progress on the groundwork to
fix up the "contextless error messages" that you're talking about.
The issue here isn't me saying "Nah, let's neglect those error
messages" because I'm actively working on them.  The issue is the way
you're relating that to the vague goal of "get kernel project design
wins".]


-t