[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH,HURD][RFC] hurdselect: Step7x, almost complete rewrite finish

From: Svante Signell
Subject: Re: [PATCH,HURD][RFC] hurdselect: Step7x, almost complete rewrite finished
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:24:23 +0100

On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 09:07 +0100, Richard Braun wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 06:51:29AM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > - the rewritten code is faster than the old one. In the old code no
> > delay is needed for the POLL case but is for the rewritten code. i.e.
> > it's faster. (irrespective of moving timeouts to the server side or not)
> I highly doubt it is, and you've never explained what would make it
> faster.

Is there a profiler available somewhere?

> > - you cannot commit this code unless I agree to sign the copyright
> > papers for libc (which I of course will when asked for). This is a
> > derived work of mine. Otherwise it has to stay as a Debian patch.
> Really ? That's what you choose to say here ? Have you at least looked
> at the changes he made ? They're really not much like what you've sent
> us.

I know, but it's still a derived work from my efforts. If I hadn't
worked on this, the current state wouldn't be as it is now.

> > - regarding programming style: Let's assume you develop a microprocessor
> > containing several millions of gates. Which solution is most easily
> > developed, maintained, reviewed and bug fixed: A flat netlist design or
> > a hierarchical design? Just ask the chip developers, like Intel and AMD.
> That's not the question. When you make a change, you make only one
> change. Don't mix them into something that just gets unreadable. I
> personally wouldn't have cared about the order of the changes (moving
> code into helper functions and fixing the poll conformance issue being
> the two changes here). But please, one at a time, separately.

Yes, that was the plan. But Samuel beat me to it when I published the
almost complete rewritten code (and gave explanations).

> Anyway, my feeling about all this is that you're making us waste the
> already very sparse amount of time we have to work on this project. You
> obviously lack the technical skills to write anything sane in C, but
> more importantly the social ones to learn from your mistakes by
> correctly communicating with others. 

Well, I've ported (bootstrapped) Ada to Hurd as an example (and signed
the papers for gcc). And I enabled ifupdown via noweb and icon{c,t,x},
ported dhcp with the help of Samuel, etc.

> The whining about copyright merely
> shows how childish you are, and I think you've chosen a project such as
> the Hurd just to have your own name printed somewhere. You really don't
> seem to care about anything else.

Yes, I do care about the progress of Hurd, really! But contributions
should be acknowledged to whoever made them, too. Maybe the commit
comment from Samuel is enough for this patch, but for the next?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]