From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, <ying.xue@windriver.com>,
<erik.hugne@ericsson.com>, <allan.stephens@windriver.com>,
<maloy@donjonn.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:05:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120525190506.GB25102@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120524.161231.1058511318935925082.davem@davemloft.net>
[Re: [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label] On 24/05/2012 (Thu 16:12) David Miller wrote:
> From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:58:16 -0400
>
> > But for new TIPC development features, future direction, and things like
> > that -- making the right call requires intimate understanding of TIPC
> > and its users, which is something that a maintainer should have but
> > something I know I don't have. (A man has to know his limitations.)
> >
> > In this context, I'm not talking about these three trivial patches; but
> > more complicated stuff that I imagine will be floated in the future.
> >
> > To that end, I can still review and call out issues in a crap patch when
> > I see them. But I'd like to see new stuff sent to netdev, so that folks
> > smarter than me have a chance to catch when a patch appears generally OK
> > but is architecturally the wrong direction etc.
>
> For maintainership, taste is more important than deep knowledge of the
> specific technology. Worst case you ask the submitter to explain the
> background of their change more thoroughly and that information is an
> absolutely requirement in the commit message and code comments
> anyways.
OK, what I'm hearing is that you'd prefer I continue to collect up TIPC
patches and issue pull requests for a while longer. I can do that. Any
specifics of how you'd like things done? -- e.g. if the reviews of new
TIPC development patches takes place here on netdev before I stage them,
will that create extra work for you dealing with them in patchworks?
Paul.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-25 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-21 5:59 [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label Jon Maloy
2012-05-21 5:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] TIPC: Adding new developers to maintainers list Jon Maloy
2012-05-21 6:37 ` David Miller
2012-05-21 5:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] TIPC: Stepping TIPC version to 2.1.0 Jon Maloy
2012-05-21 6:40 ` David Miller
2012-05-21 6:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label David Miller
2012-05-24 19:58 ` Paul Gortmaker
2012-05-24 20:12 ` David Miller
2012-05-25 19:05 ` Paul Gortmaker [this message]
2012-05-25 20:24 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120525190506.GB25102@windriver.com \
--to=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=allan.stephens@windriver.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=erik.hugne@ericsson.com \
--cc=jon.maloy@ericsson.com \
--cc=maloy@donjonn.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=ying.xue@windriver.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).