Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

arjan
2002-04-21T16:05:11Z

In article <E16yx1z-0000jV-00@starship> you wrote:

> It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC]. Now the
> typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed
> individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least,
> that's my impression of the trend.

I disagree with you here. A short 2.5 list:

BIO - Jens posted patches for MONTHS to lkml (or changelogs with the patch
on kernel.org); plenty of room for discussion
O(1) scheduler - discussed quite a bit on lkml before Linus merged it
Preempt - discussed to the extreme before being merged
Ratcache - posted for months and discussed a lot on lkml
Andrew Morten's death-to-buffer - posted to lkml quite a bit, but of course
it needs to work before it can be judged
VFS - you already said that you can see what's going on here

Now that leaves drivers and stuff. Well, for drivers, the maintainer
submitting updates, especially minor ones, directly to Linus
or the subsystem maintainer is fine by me.