[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:0.213 / U:4.396 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site