Re: [GIT] kbuild changes for 2.6.35

[Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz>]

On 1.6.2010 17:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> No, the commits themselves are likely fine, although for the future it 
> really would be good to make things like that more descriptive. I just 
> want people to try to argue for _why_ I should do a pull, and _what_ I'm 
> getting in their "please pull" thing.
> 
> It's not always necessary, and some people do it better than others. For 
> an example of a really good pull request, look at the ones David Miller 
> sends me for networking - they explain what's going on in the pull, so 
> it's always easy to pull them because just the request makes me feel like 
> David is really on top of things, and lets me have some 30'000 ft overview 
> of what's going on.

OK, I'll try to do better job next time. I'm also going to use different
branches for kbuild / kconfig / trivial stuff like .gitignore / etc from
now on, so that you don't get a all-or-nothing pull request in the next
merge window (something that Sam suggested).


> At the same time, in many cases I obviously pull _without_ any kind of 
> real explanation - and that tends to be especially true with maintainers 
> that I've worked with for a long time, or areas that are so specialized 
> that they are almost self-explanatory (let's be honest: when a filesystem 
> maintainer asks me to pull their special filesystem, I'm perfectly happy 
> with the overview of "30 changesets to XFS", and there's no need for much 
> explanation, although a rough overview of what's been going on is always 
> good to see).
> 
> So the reason I ask for explanations for kbuild is that not only have we 
> had different maintainers, it's an area that affects a lot of different 
> things and has historically had issues with odd architectures or old 
> binutils tools etc.

I see. Thanks a lot for pulling the changes now.

Michal