Re: [2.6 patch] don't allow users to set CONFIG_BROKEN=y

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 02:39:34PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:11:17PM -0800, David Lang wrote:
> >>On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>...
> >>>>- Being able to easily enable it in menuconfig, then browse through
> >>>>the menus to look for something matching your hardware is nice, even
> >>>>if that something is marked BROKEN at least you've then found a place
> >>>>to start working on. A lot simpler than digging through directories.
> >>>
> >>>Our menus are mostly made for _users_.
> >>
> >>true, but do you really want to raise the barrier for users to test
> >>things? or do you intend to have a bunch of patches that remove BROKEN for
> >>a config option so that people can test them during the -rc and then add
> >>it back for them all before a real release?
> >
> >If an option is untested it's EXPERIMENTAL.
> >If it's broken it's BROKEN.
> >
> >If an option is marked as BROKEN but works fine for you please send a
> >bug report.
> 
> my point is that if someone sends a patch that they think will fix 
> something, nobody will be able to test that patch unless they are willing 
> to edit their kconfig file unless the patch also marks it unbroken before 
> anyone else has tested it.

Kernel developers usually aren't _that_ dumb:
The patch that fixes the driver simply removes the dependency on BROKEN.

> David Lang

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