Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:02:19 +0100 | From | arjan@fenrus ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree |
| |
In article <E16yx1z-0000jV-00@starship> you wrote:
> It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC]. Now the > typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed > individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least, > that's my impression of the trend.
I disagree with you here. A short 2.5 list:
BIO - Jens posted patches for MONTHS to lkml (or changelogs with the patch on kernel.org); plenty of room for discussion O(1) scheduler - discussed quite a bit on lkml before Linus merged it Preempt - discussed to the extreme before being merged Ratcache - posted for months and discussed a lot on lkml Andrew Morten's death-to-buffer - posted to lkml quite a bit, but of course it needs to work before it can be judged VFS - you already said that you can see what's going on here
Now that leaves drivers and stuff. Well, for drivers, the maintainer submitting updates, especially minor ones, directly to Linus or the subsystem maintainer is fine by me.
- 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/
| |