Messages in this thread | | | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: Freezing.. (was Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance) | Date | Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:25:39 -0800 |
| |
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:49:37 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
> > >On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Jones wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:40:24AM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote: >> > [Extremely interesting new syscall mechanism tread elided] >> > >> > What happened to "feature freeze"? >> >> *bites lip* it's fairly low impact *duck*. > >However, it's a fair question. > >I've been wondering how to formalize patch acceptance at code freeze, but >it might be a good idea to start talking about some way to maybe put >brakes on patches earlier, ie some kind of "required approval process". > >I think the system call thing is very localized and thus not a big issue, >but in general we do need to have something in place. > >I just don't know what that "something" should be. Any ideas? I thought >about the code freeze require buy-in from three of four people (me, Alan, >Dave and Andrew come to mind) for a patch to go in, but that's probably >too draconian for now. Or is it (maybe start with "needs approval by two" >and switch it to three when going into code freeze)? > > Linus
I think there should be a distinction between changes which make an API change/new function/user interface change, versus bug fixes, adapting to new APIs, documentation, etc.
john alvord - 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/
| |