On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:46:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 11:33:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > So no, your kind of cynical, defeatist sentiment about code quality is by > > > no means true in my experience. Projects become ugly gooballs once > > > maintainers stop caring enough. > > > > In case of Qemu it was other way around. Maintainers started caring too late. > > Nah, i do not think it's ever too late to care. > > Example: arch/i386 - arch/x86_64/ was very messy for many, many years and we > turned it around and can be proud of arch/x86/ today - but i guess i'm somewhat > biased there ;-) > > In my experience it's entirely possible to turn a messy gooball into something > you can be proud of - it's all reversible. Start small, with the core bits you > care about most - then extend those concepts to other areas of the code base, > gradually. There might be subsystems that will never turn around before > becoming obsolete - that's not a big problem. > I do not disagree, but then qemu has a chance because maintainers do care now, but not about all bits. And there should be willingness to drop bits nobody cares about and I do not see this yet. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
