On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 03:34:17AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
quoted text
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But Linux kernel development is not driven by people producing hot air 
> > about what they wish to see in the future, Linux kernel development is 
> > driven by people sending patches.
> 
> Removal of code is not development.  It's the opposite of development.

Removing dead code makes:
- the kernel smaller,
- the kernel faster and
- makes it easier to maintain the non-dead code.

All of these are considered useful by the people who actually 
contribute to the Linux kernel.

quoted text
> At one stage iBCS2 support DID work.  Now it doesn't.  Now there's an
> argument that the remaining infrastructure should be removed.  This is
> the wrong direction to take.

When did iBCS2 support work in a plain ftp.kernel.org kernel?

And if you consider iBCS2 support that important I can only repeat that 
the language on Linux kernel are patches, not hot air.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/