From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933004AbYD3Wxo (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:53:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752097AbYD3Wxg (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:53:36 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:34096 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752076AbYD3Wxf (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:53:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:52:52 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Willy Tarreau Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Message-Id: <20080430155252.76469ead.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20080430224610.GO8474@1wt.eu> References: <20080429.190352.137408408.davem@davemloft.net> <200804302245.50817.rjw@sisk.pl> <200805010023.32213.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080430224610.GO8474@1wt.eu> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:46:10 +0200 Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 03:31:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > And there's no way to avoid the fact that during the merge window, we will > > > > get something on the order of ten thousand commits (eg 2.6.24->25-rc1 was > > > > 9629 commits). > > > > > > Well, do we _have_ _to_ take that much? I know we _can_, but is this really > > > necessary? > > > > Do you want me to stop merging your code? > > > > Do you think anybody else does? > > > > Any suggestions on how to convince people that their code is not worth > > merging? > > I think you're approaching a solution Linus. If developers take a refusal > as a punishment, maybe you can use that for trees which have too many > unresolved regressions. This would be really unfair to subsystem maintainers > which themselves merge a lot of work, but recursively they may apply the > same principle to their own developers, so that everybody knows that it's > not worth working on next code past a point where too many regressions are > reported. > Well. If we were good enough at tracking bug reports and regressions we could look at the status of subsytem X and say "no new features for you". That would be a drastic step even if we had the information to do it (which we don't). It would certainly put the pigeon amongst the cats tho.