Machine maintainer veto.

[Steven Munroe]

On Tue, 2015-07-07 at 00:03 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 13:09 -0500, Steven Munroe wrote:
> > It takes at least two to be constructive.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > Some like argue perfection or
> > require convincing everyone (not just GLIBC community members) to change
> > what they are already doing to a more "correct" way.
> 
> I don't understand this sentence.
> 
Sorry lost in translation ... Said more plainly.

Have you looked at what is going on PHP, OpenSSL, Boost, FFmpeg. ... and
the thousands of other packages that make up a complete distro?

I suspect you will not be happy with what you find.

So if you think __builtin_cpu_supports() is a bad solution and they
should be using STD_GNU_IFUNC then you need to convince them.

And __builtin_cpu_supports exist and has existed for Intel in compilers
including GCC for a while. So you have to convince them.

Arguing with me, will not help you achieve your goal.

Just being pragmatic ...

> > Like saying users
> > are stupid and they doing it wrong is not constructive. 
> 
> Agreed on the "are stupid", but saying that they are doing something
> that is not something glibc wants to support is not something that's
> necessarily bad.
> 
But they you should be talking to them, explaining to them, convincing
them.

Holding a platform maintainer hostage does not help you.

> > Straw-man, slipper slope, moral hazards argument should be excluded,
> > because there there no rational response to a an irrational argument. 
> > 
> > If we don't restrain this behavior, we allow individuals to block
> > platform specific patches indefinitely.
> 
> That goes both ways.  You can apply the same concerns to the other way
> around.  We need to find rules that are acceptable for all sides.
>