Re: [parisc-linux] Re: OK, let's try cleaning up another nit. Is anyone paying attention?

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:48:18PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:35:12PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > > Why not having everybody's tree consistent with themselves and have whatever
> > > CONFIGURE_* symbols and help text be merged along with the very code it
> > > refers to?  It's worthless to have config symbols be merged into Linus' or
> > > Alan's tree if the code isn't there (yet).  It simply makes no sense.
> >
> > Well, this depends a lot on a) The project to be merged (arch, mtd, whatever)
> > and b) how far something has gotten in being merged someplace else, and of
> > course c) the maintainer(s).  Whatever the exact case, and in general, it
> > should be handled via the maintainer.  Why? They maintain the code.
> 
> Therefore it's the maintainer's job to submit coherent patches and accept to
> see inconsistent CONFIG_* references be removed from the official tree until
> further patch submission is due.  It's only a question of discipline.
> Otherwise how can you distinguish between dead wood which must be removed
> and potentially valid symbols referring to code existing only in a remote
> tree?

Er, I think we agree, but I'm not sure. :)
The only people who actually know the difference between dead wood and partily
merged code are the maintainers.  IMHO it's silly to remove a piece of code
like:
#ifdef CONFIG_SOMETHING_NOT_MERGED
...
#endif
If the rest of the code, which would make the above useful is heading toward
Linus.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/