Re: [CI] Changes needed to build the CVS version of CI.

[Aneesh K. K.V <ane...@di...>]

On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 03:28, Brian J. Watson wrote:
> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> >  Attaching below is the changes needed to build the CVS version of CI.
> > Mostly #ifdef changes. I am not sure i am using the right #ifdef . Can
> > someone verify it and do the necessary checkin. ?
> 
> 
> I'm a bit torn about the issue of SSI code existing in the CI
> repository. Ideally it shouldn't be there. Any CI file touched by SSI
> should exist in both repositories, with the SSI changes made to only the
> SSI version.
> 
> Although this would be the purest approach, it also creates a bit of a
> maintenance headache for CI. Any change made to the CI version of one of
> these files must also be made to the SSI version. Ease of maintenance
> argues for putting SSI specific changes into the CI repository, and
> deactivating them with #ifdef CONFIG_SSI, CONFIG_CFS, etc., as Aneesh
> has done.
> 
> Are there any comments on which approach would be better -- purity vs.
> ease of maintenance?
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 

I vote for ease of maintenance. The purity argument will be dropped if 
we are planning to merge with Main Line Linux kernel :) ( I hope this
will happen ) 

-aneesh