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

Andries Brouwer
2005-03-05T10:44:44Z

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.
>
> 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.)

Objections - no. Anything else - yes.
I would like the requirement: "It must be obviously correct".

In a hundred lines one can put a lot of tricky code and subtle changes.
For example, if a security problem necessitates a nontrivial change,
it should cause an earlier release of 2.6.x+1 instead of a 2.6.x.y+1.

Andries