From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Dickson Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13 Message-Id: <20011103031955.3732128d.dickson@permanentmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20011029084424.D4182@tykepenguin.com> References: <20011026005405.A21775@sky.net> <20011026095641.C587@tykepenguin.com> <20011026213005.C928@sky.net> <20011029084424.D4182@tykepenguin.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=.NXA_NowC7OQrNE" Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sat Nov 3 04:21:02 2001 List-Id: To: linux-lvm@sistina.com --=.NXA_NowC7OQrNE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:44:24 +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: > > * Patrick Caulfield [011026 10:56]: > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: > >=20 > > Two questions: > > 1. Why isn=EF=BF=BDt lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do = I still > > need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than > > the older one, isn=EF=BF=BDt it? >=20 > It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel= is > *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches hav= en't > been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the = VM but > won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre. Did Linus say why? I ask this because Linus' submission policy is that you send patches to him repeatedly (ever two or three weeks) until he acknowledges them.=20 Linus frequently gets behind in his E-mail, so he just deletes everything he hasn't seen. I have included below a message from Linus which I saved about sending patches to him. -Paul On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote to LKML: > Most importantly, when sending patches to me: >=20 > - specify clearly that you really want to see them in the standard > kernel, and why. I occasionally get patches that just say "this is a > good idea". I don't apply them. Especially if they are cc'd to somebody > else too, in which case I pretty much assume that it's a RFC, not a > "real patch". >=20 > - do NOT send patches in attachements. Send one patch per mail, in > clear-text under your message, so that I can easily see the patch and > decide then-and-there whether it looks ok. And if it doesn't look ok, > and I do a "reply", the patch gets included in the reply so that I can > point out which part of the patch I dislike. >=20 > Don't worry about sending me five emails. That's FINE. I much prefer > seeing five consecutive emails from the same person with five distinct > subject lines and five distinct patches, than seeing one email with > five attachements to it. >=20 > - if your email system is broken, and you want to send patches as > attachements to avoid whitspace damage, then please FIX YOUR EMAIL > SYSTEM INSTEAD. >=20 > - Don't point to web-sites. If I have to move the mouse outside my email > xterm to work on the email, your email just got ignored. >=20 > - Make your patches one sub-directory under the source tree you're > working on. In short, your patches should look like something like >=20 > --- clean/fs/inode.c ... > +++ linux/fs/inode.c .. > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ > ... >=20 > so that I can (regardless of where my source tree is) apply them > with "patch -p1" from my linux top directory. Then I can just do a >=20 > cd v2.4/linux > patch -p1 < ~/multiple-emails-with-multiple-accepted-patches >=20 > and not have to worry about three patches being based on > /usr/src/linux, while two others not having a path at all and being > individual filenames in linux/drivers/net. >=20 > - and finally: re-send. If I had laser-eye surgery the fay you sent the > patches, I won't have applied them. If I took a day off and spent it > with the kids at the pool instead, I won't have applied them. If I > decided that this weekend I'm not going to read email for a change, I > won't have applied them. >=20 > And when I come back to work a day or two later, I will have several > hundred other emails to work through. I never go backwards in my > emails. --=.NXA_NowC7OQrNE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE748TW8BiPBVpHKeYRAu+hAJ4oH4GO9PRxLJdMYsETVsUEnavyEQCg4pc1 t0/fRCrahLvEqjJZF6CffVE= =NOFN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.NXA_NowC7OQrNE--