Re: [PATCH] Improve Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt v2

On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
<snip>
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
pretty much impossible to test for validity.)

+However, changing an interface can be delicate work and it can take
+significant amount of developer effort. Therefore, an interface is
+not changed unless the change is regarded as very important by the
+developers.

What to do
----------

I still don't understand why you want to add these sentances. Why are
they needed? Are people thinking that the kernel developers just
randomly change things just because they are bored and have nothing else
to do at the moment? Do people think that our changes are gratuitous?

Even so, I don't think this needs to be added, we have already stated
many good reasons why changing apis are necessary and good. Do need to
add another one?


Actually, Greg, a hell of a lot of people that don't track linux kernel
development do think that way. And there are always going to be people that
think that way.

So why would to more sentances trying to say "see, we really do know
what we are doing, we aren't idiots" make things any better to these
people? (hint, it wouldn't...)

As it stands the recommended paragraph does clarify that, while the interfaces
aren't stable, can and will change as needed, there are some core interfaces
that *WON'T* change without a very good reason.

Again, do you think we kernel developers just randomly change core apis
because we are bored and want something to do late at night when we
can't sleep and are tired of playing Rock Band?

Having such a public statement that anyone can see and people can
point to is another weapon to help people fight the FUD that exists
around Linux.

The whole article explains why apis are change for very good reasons
(evolution of hardware, security, we now know better, etc.) That's the
whole point of the document...

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Enterprise Architecture - your thoughts?
    ... It will be a pain for the developers and introduce ... contexts) compared to programmatic interfaces. ... > would like to offload viewing responsibility to the client. ... the domain object is purely data elements - no ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: [PATCH] Improve Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt v2
    ... interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are ... Are people thinking that the kernel developers just ... why the API may have to change. ... The whole article explains why apis are change for very good reasons ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH] Improve Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
    ... -module for the exact specific kernel configuration, ... the kernel developers find bugs in ... which have had to maintain their older USB interfaces over time. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH] Improve Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
    ... -module for the exact specific kernel configuration, ... the kernel developers find bugs in ... which have had to maintain their older USB interfaces over time. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: implementing non local returns in C++
    ... misuse, not to lock out intentional misuse. ... Full access works fine for single developers and small teams where you ... But you can have multiple interfaces to ... simply trust developers not to use interfaces that are above their pay ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)