> > And, from a standpoint of ONGOING, long-term innovation: what mattersYou mean, when Ingo announced CFS he mentioned Con's name? I really doubt that is the best reward for a developer. innovation. If it is a general point, sure, but it's hardly 1/10 of what happened here. And note I don't agree with Con's decision either - I wish he'd be back, but the reason I jumped in was to show some understanding, as I see some comments in the thread that were not doing so. When you said "it does not matter whose code got merged", I have to disagree. Sure, for the Linux community as a whole, for Linux itself, it may not matter, but for the individuals involved, it does. And I think benefits of individuals are as important as benefits of the community (or the nation). Con has been working on scheduler (fair or not) for years, and nothing got merged. Yet CFS got merged in a blink despite the fact that the competition just began to show. Have we given SD a fair chance? No. Ingo has a unique position that nobody else could challenge. Note I have said that he earned it through hard work and talent, so that's not the problem. The problem is how he could have handled it better, not "grab the food right under other's nose" blatantly. I don't think merging CFS was a wrong decision. The problem was how this decision was made. And I think Linus made some rather unfair comments about Con's personality, and I don't think deeply that was the reason he merged Ingo's code. Hua -
| Heiko Carstens | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
| Michael Kerrisk | nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME? |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
git: | |
| Gary Thomas | Marvell 88E609x switch? |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
