Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:28:30 +0200 | From | Kurt Garloff <> | Subject | Re: Huge patches such as ISDN |
| |
On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 04:02:38PM -0700, M Carling wrote: > > Then you should try to stay in > > sync with other developers, otherwise things go bad. Unfortunately (and for > > reasons that have already been discussed) this has happened to the ISDN > > project. > > Now this has to be solved. > > Somehow the current ISDN CVS code has to be sync'ed with the kernel. > > Agreed.
OK. It's good to have consensus here at least.
> > Do you really think it would be best to split the diffs up into a > > lot of small pieces? > > I didn't suggest that it should. > > > And you don't expect the ISDN developers to throw away their one year's work > > and start from scratch, do you? > > No. I didn't suggest that they should.
Sorry, if I misinterpreted your message that way.
> > Your request is very valid, though, once the initial large patch has been > > merged. You should not allow to loose sync again, then. > > You seem to miss my point. We agree that there is a huge patch which > needs to be merged. The only question is when. I suggest that the safest > time to merge a huge patch is at the beginning of a development kernel > cycle.
Well, and you ignored me telling that I agree that the huge patch has not gotten as much review as is should. But, I think, that it has gotten a lot of testing, which makes the risk of putting it into 2.3.15 close to zero.
I think it would be very frustrating to both ISDN developers and users to have the ISDN merge delayed again. Probably, they did not watch l-kernel well enough to realize 2.3.1x is not the beginning of a development cycle. 2.1.1x would have been ...
Regards, -- Dipl.Phys. Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de> [Wuppertal, FRG] Plasma physics, high perf. computing [Linux-ix86,-axp, DUX] PGP key: see mailheader / key servers [Linux SCSI driver: DC390] [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |