[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Please pull ACPI updates

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > That's the whole point of topic branches. They allow you to separate out
    > work to different areas, so that people who are interested in (say) the
    > PCI-impacting ones can merge with one part, without having to wait for the
    > other parts to stabilize.

    Btw, you don't really have to have a lot of them.

    When it comes to ACPI in particular, I would really prefer to see at least
    the ACPICA stuff in a separate topic branch. It comes in from a different
    source, it's maintained separately, and when it causes problems(*) it ends
    up usually being handled differently too.

    Len additionally split things like bugzilla entries up into individual
    topics, and that was really nice to see when merging, but I have to say
    that it was also "above and beyond" what I've ever expected of any
    maintainer. That said, I think ACPI has been rather bugzilla-driven (many
    other areas are feature-driven), and I do think it makes tons of sense to
    put fixes in different branches, and then you can merge them when you
    actualyl close the bug when the fix has been verified.

    So one reason I reacted strongly to the ACPI change was definitely just
    that ACPI used to be one of the really nicely done subsystems (not just
    from a git standpoint, but the whole git flow was part of it). There were
    some issues very early on in git usage, but I gave a shout-out to Len at
    the last kernel summit for a reason.

    And in that sense it's definitely unfair to require quite _that_ level of
    separation. I'm really not expecting it.

    But I *really* hate pulling from somebody, and seeing commit dates that
    are from five minutes ago, and based on something that I had just pushed
    out (which was essentially the case for this round of ACPI changes).

    That literally shows that the code was hardly tested _at_all_ in that
    exact configuration. It may have gotten testing based on some earlier
    kernel version, but then it very clearly got rebased (or just quilt
    imported) on top of a totally new kernel base, and was not tested in that
    version very much if at all.

    So even if you end up using quilt, I'd suggest you do so on a specific
    base, rather than on some random "kernel-of-the-moment-in-the-middle-
    of-the-merge-window". Because then at least I feel like the people
    involved have been doing their own development without having the rug
    pulled out from them all the time by using a different kernel as a base.


    (*) Which is happily fairly rare these days! I obviously detest the
    complexity that is ACPI, but even if I detest it, Intel should get cudos
    for getting it to work.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-17 17:51    [W:0.030 / U:6.872 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site