From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261225AbVFMUWb (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:22:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261167AbVFMUWT (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:22:19 -0400 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:21724 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261225AbVFMUVM (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:21:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread From: Lee Revell To: karim@opersys.com Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Bill Huey , Tim Bird , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <42ADEC0E.4020907@opersys.com> References: <20050610223724.GA20853@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610225231.GF6564@g5.random> <20050610230836.GD21618@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610232955.GH6564@g5.random> <20050611014133.GO1300@us.ibm.com> <20050611155459.GB5796@g5.random> <20050611210417.GC1299@us.ibm.com> <42AB7857.1090907@opersys.com> <20050612214519.GB1340@us.ibm.com> <42ACE2D3.9080106@opersys.com> <20050613144022.GA1305@us.ibm.com> <42ADE334.4030002@opersys.com> <1118693033.2725.21.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <42ADEC0E.4020907@opersys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:23:04 -0400 Message-Id: <1118694185.5187.6.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:26 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Daniel Walker wrote: > > I think this is mistake. Projects that create separation like this are > > begging for the community to reject them. I see this as a design for > > one, instead of design for many mistake. From what I've seen, a project > > would want to do as much clean integration as possible. > > I understand what you're saying, but based on the feedback > PREEMPT_RT has gotten up until now, and now outright suggestions > that the debate is not even relevant to the LKML, I think that > some people are trying to give those interested a hint: integration > with mainline code is NOT on the agenda. I think you're referring to one known flamer and hothead who most people on LKML don't seem to take seriously anymore. I suspect the silent majority does not mind as long as it's not intrusive on the current code base. Lee