This is the mail archive of the
frysk@sourceware.org
mailing list for the frysk project.
Re: frysk-core/frysk/proc ChangeLog IsaIA32.java I ...
- From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>, frysk at sourceware dot org, cagney at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:56:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: frysk-core/frysk/proc ChangeLog IsaIA32.java I ...
- References: <20070626221253.13799.qmail@sourceware.org> <1182934638.1046.26.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <468266E7.70707@redhat.com>
Andrew Cagney wrote:
Mark,
These changes affect three people directly: me, you and phil. Phil
and I want this; and for you, it is cosmetic. Why are you so resistant
to what you yourself recognize has no effect on the code you work on?
I've been caught up in deliverables so I have not been really paying
attention to this thread, perhaps as much as I should have. Apologies
for that. I think there are several issues caught up here, and they are
getting confused as one.
First I do not care about what the name is. It's not important to me.
dead and live, proc and corefile, pink or blue, vanilla or strawberry it
is something that is fluid and can change now and in the future. That
can be taken as complicit agreement of disagreement. I just don't have
strong feelings here.
However, I think the larger picture here, and I think is lost in the
"change over discussion" trend, is that the current proc model is pretty
faulty in some of its assumptions and really needs refactoring. For the
last six months I've been working on tweaking this and that so that
Proc/Task/Host is not live process specific. So in the longer to mid
term there really needs to be a rethink of that model.. Right now,
Andrew, Mark and myself are the main people twiddling the bits here, I
think we all have our own strong ideas on how this should work. I think
this thread has spawned because these ideas are not reconciled. In the
debate of this thread, and myself just ignoring it for various reasons,
I think there is a plain and clear need for a roundtable I'd hazard a
guess we agree more than we disagree, and it just needs to be thrashed
out. However we all have our deadlines, and for one reason or another
this design discussion has slipped through the cracks, and people have
moved forward with their ideas. I'm also guilty of not discussing a lot
of my changes.
We should table a discussion on the whys and the why nots soon.
Regards
Phil