Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 03:25:47PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 12/07/2012 12:34 PM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: > >>had old chunks somtimes,. > > > >So what? They were removed as you suggested. Is it the reason to start over? > > No but it makes the review harder. > > >>You > >>asked once what of groud work had to be done, nothing happend. We started > >>discussing how we want the hierarchy after your last post and I didn't see > >>much happen. > >>*Then* I started slowly coding with a confgifs patch followed by small > >>pieces of more code where we changed the hierarchy again. Didn't hear > >>anything from your side. > > > >I've changed the hierarchy a number of times. It is not a big deal. > >Just the need to change the hierarchy is not a reason good enough > >to start over. > > > >>Based on what I see in your description: > >>- the hierarchy is not as we discussed it the last time > > > >I wanted it to be what Michal suggested and you agreed to. > >Can you be more specific? > > Michał said to move to move /functions to be within the individual > gadget. > > >Anyway, as I said, changing the hierarchy so that functions are > >in this folder or that, configurations in this folder or that > >is a fairly easy task. Not such a great revolution so that > >starting from scratch were easier. > > > >>- the strings are not suggested by Alan also do make sense in my > >> opinion. > > > >What do you mean exactly? > > > >The need to add one more thing (language variants for strings) > >is not a valid reason to start over. > > I did not start over at _this_ point. I started in small pieces after > I did not hear anything from you. I pointed a few things out like how > do > you plan to distinguish between *same* function bound to multiple > configs. > I started small and you reviewed the v1 and did not say "wtf, why you > do this?" This fight between you two is getting close to kindergarden fight. The fact is that the entire configfs-base binding is Sebastian's design and Andrzej has tried many times to come up with something reasonable but was unsuccesful. Sebastian's approach is the only one which makes sense to my eyes. He started slowly by fixing legacy code which needed to change. Now that we have a good starting point, instead of fighting like children, both of you should join forces so this reaches mainline sooner, rather than later. Andrzej, you should get over the fact that your approach was wrong and Sebastian's approach is much nicer. Just start working together folks... -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
