Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:26 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> Daniel Walker wrote:
> > I think this is mistake. Projects that create separation like this are
> > begging for the community to reject them. I see this as a design for
> > one, instead of design for many mistake. From what I've seen, a project
> > would want to do as much clean integration as possible.
> 
> I understand what you're saying, but based on the feedback
> PREEMPT_RT has gotten up until now, and now outright suggestions
> that the debate is not even relevant to the LKML, I think that
> some people are trying to give those interested a hint: integration
> with mainline code is NOT on the agenda.

I wouldn't work on RT if mainline integration wasn't on the agenda. 

> Some may want to continue trying to force-feed mainstream
> maintainers. I can't stop anyone from trying, that's for sure.
> However, I think what I'm suggesting is a reasonable compromise:
> mainstream maintainers don't need to care about RT on a day-to-
> day basis and the RT folks get to be part of mainline.

There is going to be positive , and negative discussion on this. I think
in the end the maintainers (Linus, and Andrew) don't want "people" to
get a patch or modification from the outside. It's best if the community
is not separated .. If you make a clean integration , and people want
what you are doing, there is no reason for it to be rejected.

Daniel

-
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/