Hi, On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The point about backwards compatibility is that things WORK. > > There's no point in comparing things to how you _want_ them to work. The > only thing that matters for bckwards compatibility is how they work > _today_. > > And your suggestion would break every single installation out there. Not > "maybe a few". Every single one. > > (yeah, you could find some NFS-only setup that doesn't break. Big deal). > > And backwards compatibility is extremely important. dep_bool ' New mountalike partitioning code' CONFIG_PARTMOUNTING CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL CONFIG_WHATEVER Or, since we're talking about the future: <bool name="PARTMOUNTING"> <title> New mount-alike partitioning code </title> <dep name="EXPERIMENTAL" sense="include" /> <dep name="WHATEVER" sense="exclude" /> </bool> See? New Deal is for the ones that were annoyed by the old one. Thunder -- --./../...-/. -.--/---/..-/.-./..././.-../..-. .---/..-/.../- .- --/../-./..-/-/./--..-- ../.----./.-../.-.. --./../...-/. -.--/---/..- .- -/---/--/---/.-./.-./---/.--/.-.-.- --./.-/-.../.-./.././.-../.-.-.- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
