RFD: Rework/extending functionality of mdev

[Laurent Bercot]

On 11/03/2015 15:56, Harald Becker wrote:
> And one point to state clearly: I do not want to go the way to fork a
> project (that is the worst expected), but I'm at a point, I like /
> need to have Busybox to allow for some additional or modified
> solutions to fit my preferences

  I don't understand that binary choice... You can work on your
own project without forking Busybox. You can use both Busybox and
your own project on your systems. Busybox is a set of tools, why
should it be THE set of tools ?

  I'm not sure how heavily mdev [-s] relies on libbb and how hard it
would be to extract the source and make it into a standalone, easily
hackable project, but if you want to test architecture ideas, that's
the way to go - copy stuff and tinker with it until you have something
satisfying. Then, if upstream wants to integrate your modifications,
if you find a reasonable compromise to merge, great; if not, you still
have your harald-mdev, and you can still use it along with Busybox -
you'll have two binaries instead of one, but even on whatever tiny
noMMU you can work on, you'll be fine.

  That does not preclude design discussions, which I like, and which
can happen here (unless moderators object), and people like Isaac, me,
or obviously Denys, wouldn't be so defensive - because it's now about
your project, not Busybox; you have the final say, and it's totally
fine, because I don't have to use harald-mdev if I don't want to.

  Forks are bad, but alternatives are good.

-- 
  Laurent