[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:48:18PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:35:12PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > > Why not having everybody's tree consistent with themselves and have whatever
> > > CONFIGURE_* symbols and help text be merged along with the very code it
> > > refers to? It's worthless to have config symbols be merged into Linus' or
> > > Alan's tree if the code isn't there (yet). It simply makes no sense.
> >
> > Well, this depends a lot on a) The project to be merged (arch, mtd, whatever)
> > and b) how far something has gotten in being merged someplace else, and of
> > course c) the maintainer(s). Whatever the exact case, and in general, it
> > should be handled via the maintainer. Why? They maintain the code.
> Therefore it's the maintainer's job to submit coherent patches and accept to
> see inconsistent CONFIG_* references be removed from the official tree until
> further patch submission is due. It's only a question of discipline.
> Otherwise how can you distinguish between dead wood which must be removed
> and potentially valid symbols referring to code existing only in a remote
> tree?

Er, I think we agree, but I'm not sure. :)
The only people who actually know the difference between dead wood and partily
merged code are the maintainers. IMHO it's silly to remove a piece of code
If the rest of the code, which would make the above useful is heading toward

Tom Rini (TR1265)
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 13:27    [W:0.192 / U:8.876 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site