My statement should not have been taken too serious. What I wanted to point
out, is that there is something going wrong with vger <-> Linus relationship.
2.1.123p2 was out and a lot of people complained about the fbcon.c breakage.
It was said, that there are patches in vger which cure this, but 2.1.123
still suffers the same problems. So the coordination between vger and Linus
is suboptimal.
There has been a lot of discussion and flames about this, now, and I
certainly don't want to restart it.
I'm sorry, if my above statement provoked some of you.
I think Linus will decide on some mechanism to handle patches which makes
sure patches are not lost that easily and the developers get some feedback
(sort of: forget about it, rework it, find a clean design, find testers, I
will code it myself, ... flags) and also to make some experienced kernel
developers have a look at the patches and sort some out, before he has to
review all of them. This mechanism will be explained in the docs, so
everybody may contribute.
I think this will take some burden off Linus' shoulders and also make
developers happier, because there is more feedback and they see their work
is not lost.
There have been some suggestions about the details. Those were from just
setting a web page with some automated mechanism ... up to using some very
elaborated system like Larry's bitmover.
Most of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's up to Linus to decide.
I guess, 2.2 will still follow the old system (mailing-list) and Linus will
take a short break to start using some mechanism for 2.3.
Regards,
-- Kurt Garloff, Dortmund <K.Garloff@ping.de> PGP key on http://student.physik.uni-dortmund.de/homepages/garloff- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/