From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paolo Ciarrocchi" Subject: Re: [GIT]: Networking Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:50:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4d8e3fd30808201150j75a7d72bme81551305d3a68b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080819.041706.261399060.davem@davemloft.net> <1219170451.7591.175.camel@violet.holtmann.net> <1219203753.7591.205.camel@violet.holtmann.net> <20080820143734.GB20632@tuxdriver.com> <1219246813.7591.347.camel@violet.holtmann.net> <1219253600.7591.352.camel@violet.holtmann.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "John W. Linville" , "David Miller" , "Andrew Morton" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Marcel Holtmann" To: "Linus Torvalds" Return-path: Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.169]:41988 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752126AbYHTSun (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:50:43 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so707806wfd.4 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:50:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1219253600.7591.352.camel@violet.holtmann.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Linus, > >> > John was just pointing out (like myself before) that a lot of people are >> > under the impression that documentation updates and new drivers should >> > not be queued up and merged as soon as possible. >> >> I think (and hey, I'm flexible, and we can discuss this) that the rules >> should be: >> >> - by default, the answer should always be "don't push anything after the >> merge window unless it fixes a regression or a nasty bug". >> >> Here "nasty bug" is something that is a problem in practice, and not >> something theoretical that people haven't really reported. >> >> - but as a special case, we relax that for totally new drivers (and that >> includes things like just adding a new PCI or USB ID's to old drivers), >> because (a) it can't really regress and (b) support for a specific >> piece of hardware can often be critical. >> >> With regard to that second case, I'd like to note that obviously even a >> totally new driver _can_ regress, in the sense that it can cause build >> errors, or problems that simply wouldn't have happened without that >> driver. So the "cannot regress" obviously isn't strictly true, but I >> think everybody understands what I really mean. >> >> It should also be noted that the "new driver" exception should only be an >> issue for things that _matter_. >> >> For example, a machine without networking support (or without suppoort for >> a some other really core driver that provides basic functionality) is >> practically useless. But a machine without support for some particular >> webcam or support for some special keys on a particular keyboard? That >> really doesn't matter, and might as well wait for the next release. >> >> So the "merge drivers early" is for drivers that reasonably _matter_ in >> the sense that it allows people to test Linux AT ALL on the platform. It >> shouldn't be "any possible random driver". >> >> IOW, think about the drivers a bit like a distro would think about >> backporting drivers to a stable kernel. Which ones are really needed? >> >> Also, note that "new driver" really should be that. If it's an older >> driver, and you need to touch _any_ old code to add a new PCI ID or >> something, the whole argument about it not breaking falls away. Don't do >> it. I think, for example, that the SCSI people seem to be a bit too eager >> sometimes to update their drivers for new revisions of cards, and they do >> it to old drivers. >> >> And finally - the rules should be guidelines. It really isn't always >> black-and-white, but most of the time the simple question of "could this >> _possibly_ be just queued for the next release without hurting anything" >> should be the basic one. If the answer is "yes", then wait. > > I am perfectly fine with these rules. You only had to spell them out :) I wonder whether if it would be a good idea to periodically send out an email with the basic rules to be followed in each phase of the project. regards, -- Paolo http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/