On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
[]
> > As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive
> > patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system.
> >
> > And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks.
>
> I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I think
> you are taking my intentions quite off-course.
Don't you think that organized (i.e. Cc *management*: tracking system
sends copies to _interested people_, as it was recorded earlier, or
changed due to bouncing or off-line people; by-patch tracking
of changes, tests, bugs, rc-bugs) way of dealing with patches is bad,
but yet another fancy SPAM generator script and mess in
___kernel sources___ is OK just for publishing one's patches-ches-es?
Having seen how bitkeeper improved *management* things in 2.5 - early2.6
period, i have no problem to blame propositions as yours.
Heck, going to be another useless post...
---
-o--=O`C
#oo'L O
<___=E M
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
