Starting the kdbus discussions

[Kay Sievers]

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Jamie Strandboge <jamie at canonical.com> wrote:
> I find it quite interesting that this thread is called 'Starting the kdbus
> discussions' yet there is an apparent lack of desire to listen to what the
> community needs. Sure, there has been a lot of back and forth but it keeps
> ending with essentially 'sorry, go away', often with some sort of put down.

A possible outcome of any discussion is the decision to say no to
something. Otherwise it would be an invitation to an
explain-your-needs-and-then-we-do-that session.

There are quite extensive explanations in this mail thread why we
think that we don't what to do in the upstream code base. The
arguments were surely listened to, but they are still not convincing.

We still think that the message payload meta definitions do not belong
into the kernel, hence we say no here. There is no "go away", just
technical reasons leading to that decision.

Kay