lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree
    On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

    > Anything else anyone can think of? Any objections to any of these?
    > I based them off of Linus's original list.
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > greg k-h
    >
    > ------
    >
    > Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and what ones are not, into
    > the "linux-release" tree.
    >
    > - It can not bigger than 100 lines, with context.
    > - It must fix only one thing.
    > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
    > problem..." type thing.)
    > - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
    > marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, or a real security issue.
    > - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how
    > the race can be exploited.
    > - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
    > whitespace cleanups, etc.)

    Objections - no. Anything else - yes.
    I would like the requirement: "It must be obviously correct".

    In a hundred lines one can put a lot of tricky code and subtle changes.
    For example, if a security problem necessitates a nontrivial change,
    it should cause an earlier release of 2.6.x+1 instead of a 2.6.x.y+1.

    Andries
    -
    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 14:10    [W:0.040 / U:92.244 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site