Rik van Riel wrote:
>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
>
>
That could be dealt with by letting people resend feature containing
patches that were first submitted by Halloween (forward porting them as
things progress) until they get a rejection or Linus announces he has
taken all that he wants from the queue.
A thundering herd of patches is an opportunity, not a problem, unless
they need to get applied by Halloween.;-)
--
Hans
On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
> That could be dealt with by letting people resend feature containing
> patches that were first submitted by Halloween (forward porting them as
> things progress) until they get a rejection or Linus announces he has
> taken all that he wants from the queue.
I hope the Halloween feature freeze really will be a feature
freeze. Nothing is more frustrating than having a "stable
kernel" broken every second release by yet another feature.
If we all restrain ourselves 2.6 will be stable soon and 2.7
will be started shortly after. Backporting "essential" features
from 2.7 into a _stable_ 2.6 will be so much easier than trying
to stabilise a 2.6-pre that's full to the brim of not-yet-stable
new features.
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/