Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:59:17 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [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.
Are these 100% fixed rules or just guidelines you use?
An example that doesn't fit:
A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 . Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses this function.
A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to 2.6.10 .
> 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.)
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |