> I don't think that you need to apologize for your opinion. Thanks. I don't want you are angry with me by this reason. I simply want to explain my situation about this project.
> I will say that Richard is *very* knowledgeable. Yes, I know. The ideas about to use OOP structure in the code, add tests, atomic operations... are excellent, but I don't agree with the way to do It. To do a "serious work" as OOP, It's necessary to think about the current work, separating the pieces of the project, thinking what relationship will be between the pieces... Write empty code structures, without a previous rethinking about the final architecture and structure of this code, can cause even more problems than current "dirty" design. But these tasks are too long for a GSOC. I'm really interested in GSOC, but the OOP objective is too ambitious for It. Despite this, some of his advices can be applied in the current design: separate apic_id to a new structure (to avoid mix machine-specific and non-specific structures), remove some "extern" calls... So, I prefer continue with my current code, doing simpler refactors to ease the future redesign, but without stop the current objectives (scheduler synchronization, and load system with cpu 0 as bound processor). El mar., 4 feb. 2020 a las 16:13, Joshua Branson (<jbra...@dismail.de>) escribió: > > I don't think that you need to apologize for your opinion. I will say > that Richard is *very* knowledgeable. Any hints that you can get from > him are bound to be useful. > > -- > Joshua Branson > Sent from Emacs and Gnus >
