| |||||||||||||
init in Debianinit in DebianPosted Apr 25, 2012 13:22 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622)In reply to: init in Debian by mjg59 Parent article: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name
Why? They are both exceptions to the rule, and both are deserving of criticism here. Not actively working on portability is one thing, but being unwilling to consider patches from others to make it portable is quite another.
(Log in to post comments)
init in Debian Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:27 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
Portability comes at a cost, and it's a completely rational choice for the people who maintain a project to be unwilling to accept that cost. Maintaining a separate portable branch seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise.
init in Debian Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:46 UTC (Wed) by rleigh (subscriber, #14622) [Link]
While portability certainly does have a cost, it is a cost most projects are willing to pay. It's not usually that great--we're not talking about anything other than POSIX portability, after all. From what I can tell, this mainly centres around making cgroups optional. That's useful to have even on Linux. Being unwilling to accept patches from other people who are willing to do the porting work is entirely counter-productive.
There's also a significant cost placed on porters by being forced to work out of the main tree. This also needs consideration.
init in Debian Posted Apr 25, 2012 13:54 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The work the porters have to do is work that the maintainers would have to do otherwise. Requiring that the trees be separate is merely a way of ensuring that the work is done by the people who benefit, not the people who don't care.
|
|||||||||||||