Messages in this thread | | | From | John Alvord <> | Subject | Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin | Date | Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:10:55 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:06:09 +0000 (GMT), Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>> throughput is as high as he wants it to be! Linus has pointed out >> more than once that a big part of his job is to limit change. Maybe >> he's happy with the current rate of change in 2.5. (That doesn't >> mean everything is optimal--he might wish for higher quality changes >> or a different mix of changes, just not more.) > >Progress happens at its own rate. Linus can no more control rate of change >than you can put a waterfall into low gear. There is a difference between >refusing stuff where the quality is low and losing stuff which is clear >fixes > >> Two, Linus has argued that maintainers are his patch penguins; >> whereas you favor a single integration point between the maintainers >> and Linus. This has advantages and disadvantages, but on the whole, >> I think it is better if Linus works directly with subsystem > >Perl I think very much shows otherwise. Right now we have a maze of partially >integrated trees which overlap, clash when the people send stuff to Linus and >worse. > >When you have one or two integrators you have a single tree pretty much everyone >builds new stuff from and which people maintain small diffs relative to. At >the end of the day that ends up like the older -ac tree, and with the same >conditions - notably that anything in it might be going to see /dev/null not >Linus if its shown to be flawed or not done well. > Multiple integrator-trees dilute the tester pool, which is a major limitation on progress.
john alvord - 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/
| |