Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:47:57 +0100 | From | Francesco Munda <> | Subject | Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin |
| |
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 03:39:06 -0500 Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org> wrote:
> 2.5.x is the reference development tree. > > [...]
Ok, I buy it.
The amount of messages, and thoughts on the subject, fairly satisfied me. I wanted to see a reaction, and I indeed saw one. And I like what I've seen: the point Rob brought up was not dismissed lightheartedly, but instead spurred a discussion on many aspects of kernel development. Adoption of BK, maintainers hierarchies, trust relationships between demigods, patch handling clarifications, you name it...
Who can disagree that talking about these topics, finding solutions (to existing and future problems), and in general doing reality checks is a good thing?
And the "small patches maintainer" is a figure that should be there. World will keep spinning if nobody takes the buck, but having one such maintainer has been generally greeted as a good idea.
We can have many trees to play with to develop different changes, but that trivial one-line fixup should be in every tree, not just in "my favorite maintainer's" tree. Risking a wipeout while testing a new scheduler/VM/dev handler is one thing. Risking a wipeout for a bug that's patched in everyone's else tree but not in my own, is another. :)
Trivial fixes and largish changes should be handled in different ways, this thread seems to have summed up. Maybe by different people, to split some workload more evenly.
Many interesting points were touched. Let's wait and see.
-- 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/
| |