* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think dropping ports (temporarily) is perfectly reasonable. There is > no reason to hamper forward development just to keep old architecture > ports in the tree. You are missing the point: a lot of people (those who wrote the brunt of the -rt tree and who maintained it over the years and who maintain it today) think it's not reasonable and have stated it very clearly to you that it's a bug. Keeping things alive is not preventing forward development. So please fix this bug in your refactoring of the queue, so that your contribution can be utilized/accepted. There's no obligation on maintainers to accept buggy contributions. There's no obligation for you to fix this bug in your queue either of course - it's up to you whether you want to work with the maintainers so that your contribution can be accepted. Since it's code that you regard stale it shouldnt be all that hard to fix it up - in general it's much easier to fix a bug than to talk it out of existence, even if you disagree with a maintainer about how significant a bug is. This issue is clearly not central to your refactoring (it cannot be, it's all about stale code), so by inflexibly insisting on your opinion against the (well-explained) opinion of the maintainers you'll just waste their time and make it more difficult for them to work with you, for no good reason. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
