On March 14, 2002 05:25 pm, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Daniel Phillips writes:
> > On March 14, 2002 01:19 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > > Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 15:17, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So let's break the logjam and fix glibc's linuxthreads'
> > > > > pthread_create to [support profiling multithreaded programs]
> > > >
> > > > I will add nothing like this. The implementation is broken enough and
> > > > any addition just makes it worse. If you patch your own code you'll
> > > > get what you want at your own risk.
> > >
> > > OK. What's the right way to fix this, then?
> >
> > I see, he said to patch your own code and probably feels the issue
> > is done with. Color me less than impressed.
>
> Ulrich tends to take a hardline, "must be 100% correct" approach to
> things. He doesn't seem to like 99% solutions that will work most of
> the time but not always. This does cause some friction with people who
> want something that works "most of the time" (aka "good enough"). But
> before we cast stones, let's not forget that in kernel-land we see
> similar attitudes. How many patches has Linus rejected because it's
> "not the right way", even if many users really want it?
Oh, I have no trouble with the 'must be 100%' rule, but the failing to define
what '100%' actually means is... um... not the way Linus would handle it.
Failing to engage in discourse is just not the 'open' way.
> I guess there's always a difference between coding up and submitting
> an "unclean" workaround/fixup for someone else's code, or having it
> applied to your own :-)
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:00:18 EST