[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: The direction linux is taking
    In article <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0112271509570.12225-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>,
    Rik van Riel <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Russell King wrote:
    >> I envy Alan, Linus, and Marcelo for having the ability to silently
    >> drop patches and wait for resends.

    This is absolutely true - it's a _very_ powerful thing. Old patches
    simply grow stale: keeping track of them is not necessarily at all
    useful, and can add more work than anything else.

    One of the problems I had with jitterbug was that after a while the
    thing just grew a lot, and I spent a lot of time with a cumbersome web
    interface just acknowledging the patches. And that was despite the fact
    that not very many people actually actively used jitterbug to submit
    patches to me, so I could see it just getting a _lot_ worse.

    >I'm not going to resend more than twice. If after that
    >a critical bugfix isn't applied, I'll put it in our
    >kernel RPM and the rest of the world has tough luck.

    Which, btw, explains why I don't consider you a kernel maintainer, Rik,
    and I don't tend to apply any patches at all from you. It's just not
    worth my time to worry about people who aren't willing to sustain their

    When Al Viro sends me a patch that I apply, and later sends me a fix to
    it that I miss for whatever reason, I can feel comfortable in the
    knowledge that he _will_ follow up, not just whine. This makes me very
    willing to apply his patches in the first place.

    Replace "Al Viro" with Jeff Garzik, David Miller, Alan Cox, etc etc. See
    my point?

    This is not about technology. This is about sustainable development.
    The most important part to that is the developers themselves - I refuse
    to put myself in a situation where _I_ need to scale, because that would
    be stupid - people simply do not scale. So I require others to do more
    of the work. Think distributed development.

    Note that things like CVS do not help the fundamental problem at all.
    They allow automatic acceptance of patches, and positively _encourage_
    people to "dump" their patches on other people, and not act as real

    We've seen this several times in Linux - David, for example, used to
    maintain his CVS tree, and he ended up being rather frustrated about
    having to then maintain it all and clean up the bad parts because I
    didn't want to apply them (and he didn't really want me to) and he
    couldn't make people clean up themselves because "once it was in, it was

    I know that source control advocates say that using source control makes
    it easy to revert bad stuff, but that's simply not TRUE. It's _not_
    easy to revert bad stuff. The only way to handle bad stuff is to make
    people _responsible_ for their own sh*t, and have them maintain it

    And you refuse to do that, and then you complain when others do not want
    to maintain your code for you.

    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: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.024 / U:37.140 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site