Vincent wrote: > The code is fine but it deserves the extra scrutiny it is getting. The code is getting scrutiny on this list? At best what we are seeing here is derision, but certainly no comments on this list count as code scrutiny. So maybe its best to say the code deserve the extra scrutiny it has gotten upstream already before the decision to include in the 2.6 kernel codebase was made, instead of talking about the lack of scrutiny its currently getting on this list. No one here, on this list, is adding anything of merit to the analysis of the codebase. -jef"maybe open source developers should create bogus code and license it under a license that is friendly to proprietary consumption....to hasten the endgame scenario of propetary software development"spaleta
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
