Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
>
>Hans,
>my understanding is that core changes that aren't in by Halloween are
>not going to be accepted until 2.7. By pre-announcing the deadline,
>it is hoped that people will have lots of time to submit things that are
>ready for inclusion, as opposed to rushing to submit when the "freeze"
>is announced all of a sudden.
>
>
>
>
>
I, in my egocentrism, think it would make more sense to have a deadline
for submission rather than a deadline for acceptance, as that would make
things predictable for patch submitters, and avoid unintentional
overlooking of good patches from obscure persons due to the crush of
patches in October.
Pre-announcing the deadline is good, but having it be a deadline on
something the patch submitters control (submission time not acceptance
time) would be even better.
--
Hans
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I, in my egocentrism, think it would make more sense to have a deadline
> for submission rather than a deadline for acceptance,
It's both. We all know Linus doesn't have the time to keep
forward-porting our hundreds of patches so he can only include
patches into his kernel that apply to the exact same tree he
has at that day.
This (and the fact that Linus gets far too much email and patches
to look at old ones) is bound to make the Halloween deadline stick
for both submission and acceptance.
I hope.
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
On Jul 20, 2002 03:37 +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >my understanding is that core changes that aren't in by Halloween are
> >not going to be accepted until 2.7. By pre-announcing the deadline,
> >it is hoped that people will have lots of time to submit things that are
> >ready for inclusion, as opposed to rushing to submit when the "freeze"
> >is announced all of a sudden.
>
> I, in my egocentrism, think it would make more sense to have a deadline
> for submission rather than a deadline for acceptance, as that would make
> things predictable for patch submitters, and avoid unintentional
> overlooking of good patches from obscure persons due to the crush of
> patches in October.
>
> Pre-announcing the deadline is good, but having it be a deadline on
> something the patch submitters control (submission time not acceptance
> time) would be even better.
I would agree, except that this doesn't put any onus on the submitters
to get their patches in early, and causes the thundering heard of
patches problem the same way that not announcing the patch deadline does.
Note that "accepted" may be a bad term on my part - I can't say if this
means that the patch has been recieved by Linus, or whether it actually
has to be in the kernel tree at that date.
Note that I wasn't at the kernel summit myself, hence this is all just
what I have heard from others.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/