2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[DHollenbeck]

I had hoped that the proper discipline in rejecting non-critical patches 
would have pertained.  I remain unconvinced that the .y releases are 
anything but noise that should have been kept elsewhere.  After reading 
through a patch summary, I see this as typical:


----------------------


      ChangeSet 2005/02/22 20:56:28-05:00, bunk @ stusta.de
      <http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt>
      [diffview]
      <http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt>

[PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const

This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>

----------------------------------

It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a 
patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 
2.6.x.y series.

Is this typical, and is this in line with the intent of the x.y series?

If this is going to achieve the objective, the gatekeeper has to be a 
real stubborn, unpopular horse's ass it seems, with a sign on his 
forehead that reads:  GO AWAY AND COME ANOTHER DAY!

Somewhat disappointedly,

Dick

-- 
Please help fix the U.S. software industry before it is too late.
Contact your U.S. representatives with this information:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041003041632172

Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[Randy.Dunlap]

DHollenbeck wrote:
> I had hoped that the proper discipline in rejecting non-critical patches 
> would have pertained.  I remain unconvinced that the .y releases are 
> anything but noise that should have been kept elsewhere.  After reading 
> through a patch summary, I see this as typical:
> 
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> 
>      ChangeSet 2005/02/22 20:56:28-05:00, bunk @ stusta.de
>      
> <http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt> 
> 
>      [diffview]
>      
> <http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/cset-bunk@stusta.de%5Bjgarzik%5D%7CChangeSet%7C20050223015628%7C49266.txt> 
> 
> 
> [PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const
> 
> This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a 
> patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 
> 2.6.x.y series.
> 
> Is this typical, and is this in line with the intent of the x.y series?
> 
> If this is going to achieve the objective, the gatekeeper has to be a 
> real stubborn, unpopular horse's ass it seems, with a sign on his 
> forehead that reads:  GO AWAY AND COME ANOTHER DAY!
> 
> Somewhat disappointedly,

Are you looking at 2.6.x.y patches?  I don't think so......

-- 
~Randy

Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[Chris Wright]

* DHollenbeck (dick@softplc.com) wrote:
> [PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const
> 
> This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a 
> patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 
> 2.6.x.y series.

I think you've confused something.  This patch is not in -stable.
Here's current listing:

http://linux-release.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6.11/ChangeSet@1.2079..1.2085

thanks,
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net

Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[Chris Friesen]

DHollenbeck wrote:

> It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a 
> patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 
> 2.6.x.y series.

Where do you see that patch as being applied in the new .y stable series?

Chris

Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[DHollenbeck]

> Where do you see that patch as being applied in the new .y stable series?
>
> Chris
>

I got that patch description from here:
When you go to http://kernel.org, and click on the stand alone " C " to 
the right of 2.6.11.2

It is a hyperlink to:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/

Have I mis-understood something, or is the website misleading?  Or both :)

Dick

Re: 2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

[Brian Gerst]

DHollenbeck wrote:
> 
>> Where do you see that patch as being applied in the new .y stable series?
>>
>> Chris
>>
> 
> I got that patch description from here:
> When you go to http://kernel.org, and click on the stand alone " C " to 
> the right of 2.6.11.2
> 
> It is a hyperlink to:
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/
> 
> Have I mis-understood something, or is the website misleading?  Or both :)

The website is wrong.  That URL points to Linus' tree.

--
				Brian Gerst