Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 21:01 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > Confused ... you did get the first pull request in the first week.
> 
> Here's the problem. Let me repeat it again:
> 
> > > And after -rc1, I don't want to see crap like this:
> > > 
> > > 	 46 files changed, 2837 insertions(+), 2050 deletions(-)
> 
> It DOES NOT MATTER if I get a first pull request in the first week, if 
> that pull request is purely cosmetic, and is followed by stuff that 
> *should* have been in the merge window four weeks afterwards.
> 
> > OK ... that's arguable.
> 
> There's nothing arguable at all about it.
> 
> If you have 5000 lines of changes, that's not a "bugfix" any more. That's 
> a big damn change, and it should have happened in the merge window. Or if 
> it doesn't make it in time, in the *next* merge window.

I'm not arguing that the bug fix piece wasn't too big (although
realistically, line counts are only a guide not a rule.  If we discover
something like a calling convention bug in SCSI [reversed kmalloc
arguments, say], I could see a huge patch to fix all of the call
sites) ... I've said I'll take responsibility for that and fix it.

I'm arguing that a too strict an interpretation of bugfix only post -rc1
will damage feature stabilisation.  Please think carefully about this.
If we go out in a released kernel with a problematic user space ABI, we
end up being committed to it forever.

James