On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 13:52 -0800, Brian Swetland wrote:
> 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"
Are they really different devices tho? I thought Dream and G1 are the
same..
> 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.
I don't think it's that strict, I could merge the fish names into
mainline if I wanted to .. It's just that I don't feel like those are
the right names to use since mass marketing basically changes the names
once their released.
Daniel
--
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
