![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 12:18 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||