Re: [ck] Re: Swap prefetch merge plans

[jos poortvliet <jos@mijnkamer.nl>]

Op Saturday 10 February 2007, schreef Randy Dunlap:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:35:51 -0500 Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I have an email sitting in my drafts folder stating that I'll no longer
> > > accept any features unless they've been publically reviewed in detail
> > > and run-time tested by a third party.  The idea being to force people
> > > to spend more time reviewing and testing each other's stuff and less
> > > time writing new stuff.  Maybe on a sufficiently gloomy day I'll
> > > actually send it.
> >
> > /me sneaks into Andrew's office and sends it out.
>
> Thanks.  8)

Well, is it smart? I mean, it's not stupid of course, but it has its 
disadvantages which Andrew already mentioned. Less time for writing new 
stuff. So it is a tradeoff, most likely the reason why he didn't send it yet. 

What are the sideeffects of this? Does it repel people? Or controversely, does 
it bring new people in, who are asked by others to do a little review? 

Does it lead to better documented and commented code, to help the review 
process? Does it lead to worse reviews? Does it stiffle innovation, or, as 
more ppl work on one patch, does it stimulate it? Will people start to 
cooperate more, or will they argue and fight when someone refuses to review 
patches?

Anyway, you can't know these in advance, and watching what it does is the only 
way to find out. Its Andrew's call, either way.

Days should't be gloomy, but if they do, trying new things is the only way to 
find a solution. The growing amount of people workin on the kernel and the 
increasing demands from the users force the kernel community to evolve, and 
central figures like Andrew and Linus play a big role in this. I think you 
guys have done a great job until now, and I trust you can keep it that way.

Jos

Attachment: pgpqxdfYNV0YO.pgp
Description: PGP signature