On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 03:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * 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. > > > > That has always been my intention. I've never said the arch code would > > be permanently gone. > > Get it. Dropping it means bitrot. > > The responsible maintainers keep that (maybe stale) code at least in > sync as far as the obvious fixups are concerned. > > Your way of chosing the least effort approach and justifying it with > handwaving arguments is just disgusting. Can you stop with these comments. Lets try to resolve this in civil way. Daniel -- 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
