Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:20:57 +0200 (CEST) | From | willy tarreau <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System |
| |
Hi !
This is a very interesting idea, but I think we will quickly need two more types of information from the patch sender :
- type of patch (fix, new feature, performance boost, cleanup ...)
- the degree of reliability known to the sender : - some patches are hand-coded (often proposals on lkml) - some *will* break something (just for test purposes) - some are known to be buggy, but testers are needed - some patches are simply not tested - some are reported to work for a long time on a small amount of computers - some are reported to work, perhaps with small bugs (ie: raid, reiserfs, ide... mainly real projects) - some are known to involve absolutely no risk at all (mainly documentation patches).
I personnaly would like to be able to classify the patches I sometimes send this way. I know that some of them are not good and I wouldn't like people to blindly rely on them. With such a method, it would be easy to select "reliable fixes" or "features that need to be fixed" on a search engine.
Moreover, if a patch is finally reported to break something, it would be easy to change it reliability level afterwards.
If we also add a field that tells if the patch is to be included, not to be included or simply proposed, it would be helpfull to include synthetic reports about the global reliability.
Just my two cents here,
Willy
___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Achetez, vendez! À votre prix! Sur http://encheres.yahoo.fr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |