Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Dead2" <> | | Subject | Re: The direction linux is taking (CVS) | | Date | Tue, 18 Dec 2001 22:21:55 +0100 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Brownfield" <brownfld@irridia.com>
> The CVS tree availability you mention parallels the FreeBSD tree, I > believe. However, assuming enough brain cycles, one knowledgable > maintainer seems to be a better method of maintaining a kernel.
Then positive and negative sides should be gathered from their experiences aswell, it can be good for the outcome to follow something that has been tested thoroughly by others.
*snip*
> I've been following lkml for some time now, and I've been using patches > that get posted to the list. But I do so at my own risk, since I do not > have comprehensive knowledge of kernel internels. But even I can tell > that many of the patches posted are either bogus, are potentially > incorrect in subtle and/or complex ways, or are simply working around > user-space issues or other bugs.
Therfore only trusted maintainers should have access. Normal deadly people like me would have to contact the maintainer(s) for that sub-tree.
> What might take out a few birds with one stone is to have someone on > lkml become an "LKML MAINTAINER": collect patches and bug reports in a > central place. This would include: > > 1) The patch and/or bug report > 2) The entire LKML thread, with "important" messages marked > 3) Personal input, prioritization, severity info, etc.
Or even make a kernel-patches@vger.kernel.org address that would be parsed manually of automaticly..
*snip-snip* > -- > Ken. > brownfld@irridia.com
-=Dead2=-
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 04:09:00PM +0100, Dead2 wrote: > | > > > 1. Are we satisfied with the source code control system ? > | > > > | > > Yes. Alan (2.2) and Marcelo (2.4) and Linus (2.5) are doing > | > > a good job with source control. > | > > | > Not really. We do a passable job. Stuff gets dropped, lost, > | > deferred and forgotten, applied when it conflicts with other work > | > - much of this stuff that software wouldnt actually improve on over a > | > person > | > | What about having the Linux source code in a CVS tree where active/trusted > | driver-/module-maintainers are granted write access, and everyone else read > | access. > | After the patches are applied, people will test them out, and bugfixes will > | be applied when bugs are detected. > | Then, when the kernel-maintainer feels this or that sourcecode is ready for a > | .pre kernel, he puts it in the main kernel tree. > | (This would indeed pose a security risk, but who in their right mind would run > | a CVS snapshot on anything important, that's right _noone_ in their _right > | mind_) > | > | Of course this would require much maintenance, and possibly more than > | one kernel-maintainer. This because of how much easier it would become > | for driver-/module-maintainers to apply patches they believe would make > | things better. Cleanups would also be necessary from time to time.. > | (cleanups = making the CVS identical to the main kernel tree again) > | > | Just my 2 cents.. > | > | -=Dead2=- > | > | > | > | > | - > | 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/ > - > 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/
- 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/
|  |