lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.27 enum
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 02:49:37PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Yes. It particularly sucks on the "maintainerless" core code which is always
> in flux. This is also why I generally reject whitespace-cleanup patches,
> and originally rejected the "doesnt" patches (I got convinced by the pedants).
>
> OTOH, 90% of kernel code is copied from elsewhere, so janitorial cleanups
> *are* worthwhile, as long as they are one-liners, or fix a real problem.

I agree in part. Take the initialiser patches you're currently carrying
for example. Whilst they're more useful (and more likely) to get merged
than the enum patches, they also have the annoying issue that anyone
currently working on code near those gets shafted.

With large touching patches like these, the only way to not piss people
off is to find out who's working on a particular area, and work with
them. "Can you roll this into your current working tree, and push to
Linus next time". Instead of just shovelling straight to Linus.
(Note, you did seem to actually seem to do the right thing here FWICS.
have a gold star to go alongside your recent black one).

Dave

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
-
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 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans