On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 03:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I think dropping ports (temporarily) is perfectly reasonable. There is 
> > > > no reason to hamper forward development just to keep old architecture 
> > > > ports in the tree.
> > > 
> > > You are missing the point: a lot of people (those who wrote the brunt of 
> > > the -rt tree and who maintained it over the years and who maintain it 
> > > today) think it's not reasonable and have stated it very clearly to you 
> > > that it's a bug. Keeping things alive is not preventing forward 
> > > development.
> > 
> > That has always been my intention. I've never said the arch code would
> > be permanently gone. 
> 
> Get it. Dropping it means bitrot.
> 
> The responsible maintainers keep that (maybe stale) code at least in
> sync as far as the obvious fixups are concerned.
> 
> Your way of chosing the least effort approach and justifying it with
> handwaving arguments is just disgusting.

Can you stop with these comments. Lets try to resolve this in civil way.

Daniel

--
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/