Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree

Adrian Bunk
2005-03-05T13:59:48Z

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

> Anything else anyone can think of? Any objections to any of these?
> I based them off of Linus's original list.

Are these 100% fixed rules or just guidelines you use?

An example that doesn't fit:

A patch of me to remove an unused function was accepted into 2.6.11 .
Today, someone mailed that there's an external GPL'ed module that uses
this function.

A patch to re-add this function as it was in 2.6.10 does not fulfill
your criteria, but it is a low-risk way to fix a regression compared to
2.6.10 .

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
> ------
>
> Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and what ones are not, into
> the "linux-release" tree.
>
> - It can not bigger than 100 lines, with context.
> - It must fix only one thing.
> - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
> problem..." type thing.)
> - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
> marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, or a real security issue.
> - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how
> the race can be exploited.
> - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
> whitespace cleanups, etc.)

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed