Messages in this thread | | | From | (Greg KH) | Subject | Re: [linux-usb] URB-ifying usb | Date | Sun, 05 Dec 1999 02:50:40 GMT |
| |
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:45:38 -0800, "Gregory P. Smith" wrote:
>IMHO, more than one maintainer would be nice. How do people feel about >using a system such as http://www.sourceforge.net/ (free, sponsored by >valinux) for CVS sound? [Allowing a few of us commit access and having >the rest of people coordinate patches through us via the mailing list?] >(if that sounds like bsd style development, well, it is and it works) One >of us could be designated as the "alpha maintainer" to keep the kernel up >to date with our tree by feeding patches to linus. No flamewars please. > >Greg
Do other parts of the kernel have CVS trees that actually work well? I know ISDN does, but Linus has expressed his displeasure of how that group feeds him patches, he wants small patches that do simple things most of the time. I know ISDN has tried to feed large ones from their CVS tree, only to be rejected.
IRDA used to have a CVS tree, but now that it is integrated into the kernel, I don't know.
With the exception of the large change that the URBs will have, most of the time it has been small patches that have been submitted. Even the HID patch was not very large. I don't know if CVS is the answer for this. As long as the maintainer(s) feed these to Linus for inclusion in the main kernel trunk, any CVS tree should not be very different from the kernel source. So the advantage of having a CVS tree is reduced.
And what about Bitkeeper and how it is going to affect submitting patches?
But if CVS is really wanted, I second the recommendation of using sourceforge.net. They seem to have a huge amount of bandwidth and processing power. Much more than I could ever offer up.
greg k-h greg@kroah.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |