[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].
    * Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:08:13 +0200
    >> Crazy development{0}. Somebody knows, that comprehensively testing
    >> hibernation is their thing. I don't care about it, i care about foo, bar.
    >> Thus i can apply for example lguest patches and implement and test new
    >> asm-offset replacement, *easily*.
    > That's right. But the production of subsystem test patchkits is
    > volunteer work which will be hard to unify.
    > I'm not saying it's impossible to reach some degree of organized
    > production of test patchkits; after all we already have some
    > standardization regarding patch submission which is volunteer work too.

    But still there's no one opinion about against what tree to base the
    patch. For somebody it's Linus's mainline, for somebody it's bleeding
    edge -mm. And there will be no one.

    Thus, particular patch entry might have as -mm as Linus's re-based
    versions or (as Adrian noted) VFS.asof02-07-2007 FANCYFS. For example,
    Rusty did that, after somebody asked him to have not only -mm lguest
    version. So, for really intrusive feature/patch (and not
    in-middle-development, Adrian) author can have a version (with git
    branch, patch directory or something).

    Counter-example: Scheduler patches are extraordinary with large
    threads or replies, but that is (one of) classical release-early and
    often. Proposed bureaucracy doesn't apply ;)
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-06-19 19:05    [W:4.387 / U:4.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site