[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] Squashfs pull request for 2.6.29
    Dave Jones wrote:
    > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:30:18AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
    > > I was wanting to stick with drivers to start with, but I really have no
    > > objection to adding filesystems, if they are self-contained, to the
    > > drivers/staging/ directory.
    > >
    > > I looked at adding squashfs, but at the time, it touched other portions
    > > of the kernel which wouldn't have made it a good canidate for staging.
    > > This was later resolved, and now that it is merged, it's a moot issue :)
    > >
    > > So, if anyone wants to send me filesystems, I'll be glad to take them
    > > into drivers/staging, as long as they are self-contained (novfs for
    > > example would fit this category.)
    > Filesystems in staging worries me.
    > * The number of people who competently review filesystem code
    > (and I mean real review here, not checkpatch & codingstyle crap)
    > is significantly less than those who review drivers.
    > I foresee stuff just lingering there for years.
    > (Look how long fs stuff hangs around unmerged in -mm for example).
    > * The fallout of staging is already starting to drift into distros.
    > Within a week of Fedora shipping a kernel that had staging/
    > we had requests to enable drivers from it.
    > And of course, those drivers were garbage.
    > This is only going to increase as time goes on.
    > * For crap drivers that a minority cares about, this isn't a big deal
    > to tell the users "build it yourself, we don't support it when stuff breaks".
    > (And a lot of that crap will break. NetworkManager won't work properly
    > with some of the wireless crap in staging for example), but by
    > continually adding to the shitpile the potential for review dramatically
    > gets reduced, and for something as critical as a filesystem, I find this
    > absolutely terrifying from a support perspective.
    > I don't mean to piss on your parade, but from my viewpoint, staging
    > is a trainwreck so far, and I'd hate to see it get worse.
    > We've already demonstrated "look how much stuff we can merge" time and
    > time again, but no-one ever seems to have a proposal for how we increase
    > the amount of review code gets before it's merged.
    > There's lowering the barrier for entry, and there's not having a barrier at all.
    > The latter is what I'm concerned that staging/ has become.

    I agree. Alexey D. asked about that a few days ago and the Greg's answer
    about what he would accept was "anything". Ugh ugh ugh. I did not like
    that reply at all.

    I agree that crap is the right name for lots of it. For the ones that
    people & distros care about, someone should step up and do some real
    work on them.


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-01-22 23:01    [W:0.023 / U:21.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site