James Bottomley wrote:
It followed the rule of trying to stabilise outside mainline ... it just
didn't get sufficient integration testing.
IMO it's self-evident that pushing to a git tree few ever see or test is
not following the spirit of the rule.
In practice, stabilize outside mainline implies -mm integration, in
addition to whatever else a maintainer does specific to their subsystem.
I wouldn't call bsg half baked ... it was very carefully matured. There
were just a few integration issues.
I wouldn't call bsg carefully matured, if in addition to not really
gracing -mm with its presence, the userland API structure is still
getting changes on July 29, 2007 (0c6a89ba640d28e1dcd7fd1a217d2cfb92ae4953).
This would be the ABI change I talked about in the previous emails.
So would this problem have been fixed simply by adding the missing block
tree to -mm?
IMO 70% of the problem would be solved by that.
It wouldn't have solved the late ABI change though (which was first
posted in earlier form on April 4th, and so, had time for integration).
Jeff
-
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]
