> Problem with that is that you don't even know if the code-base > will be used, so such factoring will be useless.
Not if it's done well. The point is that if you can make the code base suitable well designed, it will become *portable* and of course it will be used. Then it isn't being done well right now. It sounds now as if you are bitching that other people are doing some other project which you aren't interested in, and you are worried that things would be better if they worked on the Mach-based project. This may be, but the way to argue it is to argue that work is more productively accomplished in place A than place B, not to try and get maintainers to declare. And it sounds as you have not bothered reading anything of what I wrote. I told you repetedly that I do not care if the Hurd is Mach based, or L4 based, or even Linux based. The micro-kernel that is being used is _totally_unimportant_. If someone invests their time in something they simply do not wish to see that code ditched because of some redesign that someone has simply not thought through. But you think that it is a simple matter of doing what one wants, maybe if it is your own pet project that is true, it is simply not true in a community project that contains more than 2 lines of code that is supposed to be used by others, since a project where everyone does whatever they want will never ever be released and be usable by people. Maybe you simply do not wish the Hurd to succeed, in that case it is you who should stop working on community projects, not me. _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
