From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (snark.tuxedo.org [207.106.50.26]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C155F482A for ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:53:35 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:53:02 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Alan Cox Cc: "Albert D. Cahalan" , Matthew Wilcox , james rich , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: OK, let's try cleaning up another nit. Is anyone paying attention? Message-ID: <20010420095302.A5674@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20010420093538.A5525@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:43:49PM +0100 List-ID: Alan Cox : > > Alan Cox : > > > I have for one. Its definitely the wrong approach to bomb Linus > > > with patches when doing the merge of an architecture. All the > > > architecture folk with in their own trees for good reason. > > > > On the other hand, Linus has objected to the One-Big-Patch approach in > > the past with respect to things like the networking and VM code. How > > are people to know what the right thing is? > > Who said anything about one big patch ? Just because you have a lot > of differences doesnt mean you send Linus one giant splat of code. I > don't send Linus -ac for example. OK, so maybe I'm being stupid. But the implication of this talk of separate port trees and architecture merges is that these guys periodically send big resync patches to you and Linus. If that's not what's going on, what is? -- Eric S. Raymond Never could an increase of comfort or security be a sufficient good to be bought at the price of liberty. -- Hillaire Belloc