On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> I still fail to understand why there's a problem with naming the
>> boards based on the names the development team for the device used.
>> That these names happen to be fish instead of a collection of numbers
>> and letters or some other codename seems unimportant.
>>
>> This really feels like an needless hurdle ("we don't like your board
>> names") rather than a valid issue ("code does not compile", "code
>> fails checkpatch / has style violations", etc).
>
> The code is grossly misnamed. Yes, that's pretty serious issue, more
> serious than checkpatch, I'd say. This actually hurts the person
> trying to read the code.
>
> Yes, people sometimes get a way with similary bad names -- mostly by
> merging the code so early that by the time it gets good name, it is
> already in vanilla tree. But a) you already missed that opportunity
> and b) bad stuff in tree does not mean we should add more bad stuff.
Again, I cannot understand how it's "grossly misnamed" when the name
is the name the developers of the product named the product.
There are something like 3 orders of magnitude more "G1" devices out
there than "Dream", for example, all of which are, under the hood,
"trout"
If the opinion of mainline linux is "we will not take your code because
we don't like what you named your hardware", okay, so be it.
Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
