Messages in this thread | | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Subject | Re: Accountability | Date | 14 Sep 1999 19:40:18 +0200 |
| |
In article <cistron.19990914160259Z156135-15266+621@vger.rutgers.edu>, Colin McCormack <colin@field.medicine.adelaide.edu.au> wrote: >I looked at the patch, it didn't look unstable, unclean or insubstantial. It >looked like a fairly straight-forward and elegant mod, to me. > >I note that there have been 4 released versions of the patch, going back to >2.0.29. One would have thought it was in a reasonable position to go into >2.2.1. > >Although I am not the author of the work in question, if it was me, I'd be >looking for some reasoned feedback as to why it's not in the kernel already, >otherwise I'd become rapidly disenchanted, discouraged and demotivated.
Kernel patches need to be announced on linux-kernel. Then you get a few people to test it. Then you send it to the subsystem maintainer, or directly to Linus. These people are very busy; if you sent a patch for 2.3.15 and in the main time 2.3.18 has appeared on which it doesn't patch cleanly you won't get an answer. Also if you don't document _very well_ what the patch does and why it won't get applied either.
If Linus or the subsystem maintainer doesn't reply assume your patch was not good enough. You can send another email to ask for an explanation, and you'll usually get one.
To get a patch in the kernel, you need to be very persistent. OTOH, as soon as a you get a driver or filesystem or other subsystem into the kernel of which you are clearly the author/maintainer, patches will usually be applied with no questions asked.
Mike. -- ... somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet -- Bill, "The Terrible Thunderlizards"
- 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/
| |