lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin
    On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:23:26 +0000
    Padraig Brady <padraig@antefacto.com> wrote:

    > Currently the way I see it [should be] currently is:
    >
    > [cut-n-pasted graph]
    >
    > I.E. Linus just gets input from the combiners which
    > test logic from the maintainers in combination. Also
    > random hackers should input to the combiners and not Linus
    > if there isn't an appropriate maintainer for their code.

    Quite descriptive and useful, thanks.

    Let me raise a point. And extend your graph:

    random hackers
    | | | | | | |
    | maintainers -< subsys testers
    | | | |
    combiners -< tree testers
    | |
    Linus

    Who you call combiners... How many of them should release independent trees
    to be thrown at us test-dogs? My point of view is neither the hacker, nor the
    maintainer nor the combiner one. Nor Linus, thank god! :) It's the guy who
    risks his filesystem integrity with some 2.X.Y-preZ-testW-QQ-KK kernel.

    How many crosspatched sources I should look at, to try my luck with?

    Have fun,

    -- Francesco

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.023 / U:29.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site