[lkml]   [2001]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread

    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


    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:0.021 / U:2.312 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site