Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:09:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:09:35 -0400 Received: from pipt.oz.cc.utah.edu ([155.99.2.7]:61166 "EHLO pipt.oz.cc.utah.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:09:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:07:22 -0600 (MDT) From: james rich To: Matthew Wilcox cc: "Eric S. Raymond" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: OK, let's try cleaning up another nit. Is anyone paying attention? In-Reply-To: <20010419211749.I4217@zumpano.fc.hp.com> 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 On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:00:09PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > What is the right procedure for doing changes like this? Is "don't > > touch that tree" a permanent condition, or am I going to get a chance > > to clean up the global CONFIG_ namespace after your next merge-down? > [snip] > My preference would be for you to fetch our tree > and submit patches to us, which will get to Linus in the fullness of time. Truly this is not meant to be negative - don't take it as such. Doesn't this seem a little like the problems occurring with lvm right now? A separate tree maintained with the maintainers not wanting others submitting patches that conflict with their particular tree? It seems that any project should be able to submit any patch against The One True Tree: Linus' tree. James Rich james.rich@m.cc.utah.edu - 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/