Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:40:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:40:51 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:46092 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 11:40:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:49:37 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Dave Jones cc: Horst von Brand , , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton Subject: Freezing.. (was Re: Intel P6 vs P7 system call performance) In-Reply-To: <20021218164119.GC27695@suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1242 Lines: 32 On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:40:24AM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote: > > [Extremely interesting new syscall mechanism tread elided] > > > > What happened to "feature freeze"? > > *bites lip* it's fairly low impact *duck*. However, it's a fair question. I've been wondering how to formalize patch acceptance at code freeze, but it might be a good idea to start talking about some way to maybe put brakes on patches earlier, ie some kind of "required approval process". I think the system call thing is very localized and thus not a big issue, but in general we do need to have something in place. I just don't know what that "something" should be. Any ideas? I thought about the code freeze require buy-in from three of four people (me, Alan, Dave and Andrew come to mind) for a patch to go in, but that's probably too draconian for now. Or is it (maybe start with "needs approval by two" and switch it to three when going into code freeze)? Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/