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
tree?
Nicolas
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 21:00:37 EST