Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_EDF scheduling class

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/23/2009 05:50 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 14:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>    
>> * Avi Kivity<avi@redhat.com>  wrote:
>>
>>      
>>>> discouraging contributions is more something that happens when you
>>>> get the responses I got earlier in this thread..
>>>>          
>>> That's probably intentional.  Whitespace fixes have their place but
>>> not at this stage in a patch's lifecycle.
>>>        
>> Exactly. What might make sense is to scan linux-next for new commits
>> that show serious cleanliness trouble - and send fix patches to the
>> parties involved. That's a real effort and brings the code forward.
>>      
> Often times when a patch is at youngest that when you want to catch
> these issues .. This EDF patch will likely get submitted more than
> twice. If you catch all the minor problems first you will not be dealing
> with them later when it comes time to include the code.
>    

Not true, you want to address the major issues first.  What's the point 
of fixing whitespace if the whole approach is rejected? if it has to 
undergo a rewrite? (not an opinion on EDF btw, just as an example)

> In this case the author is not totally aware of how to submit this
> code.. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to comment on that. His
> next submission will likely be much cleaner and nicer. It may even speed
> up the inclusion process since he'll be more easily able to submit the
> code (with practice and comments from us).
>    

Give people some credit.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function