Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:09:00 -0700
From:   Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@gmail.com>,
        Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
        Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>, kconfig-sat@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [kconfig-sat] [ANN] init-kconfig - easy way to embrace Linux's
 kconfig
Message-ID: <20181004200859.GA10237@localhost>
References: <20181004200249.GL5238@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181004200249.GL5238@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 01:02:49PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Every now and then a project is born, and they decide to use Linux's
> kconfig to enable configuration of their project. As it stands we *know*
> kconfig is now used in at least over 12 different projects [0]. I myself
> added kconfig to one as well years ago. Even research reveals that
> kconfig has become one of the leading industrial variability modeling
> languages [1] [2].
> 
> What is often difficult to do though is to start off using kconfig and
> integrating it into a project. Or updating / syncing to the latest
> kconfig from upstream Linux.
> 
> I had yet another need to use kconfig for another small project so
> decided to make a clean template others can use and help keep it in sync.
> This is a passive fork which aims to keep in sync with the Linux
> kernel's latest kconfig to make it easier to keep up to date and to
> enable new projects to use and embrace kconfig on their own.  The goal
> is *not* to fork kconfig and evolve it separately, but rather keep in
> sync with the evolution of kconfig on Linux to make it easier for
> projects to use kconfig and also update their own kconfig when needed.

Is there a *fundamental* reason that we couldn't have this *be* Linux
kconfig, whether pulled in by submodule or regular merges, and avoid
having any divergence at all?