Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 23:50:27 -0800
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Andres Salomon <dilinger@voxel.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFQ] Rules for accepting patches into the linux-releases tree
Message-Id: <20050306235027.268da803.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <pan.2005.03.06.17.10.41.114607@voxel.net>
References: <20050304222146.GA1686@kroah.com>
	<20050305104305.GB7671@pclin040.win.tue.nl>
	<pan.2005.03.06.17.10.41.114607@voxel.net>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1287
Lines: 39

Andres wrote:
> An obvious fix is an obvious fix.

Perhaps in theory.  But in practice, any fix bears some risk.

They have nothing against "obvious" fixes.  But unless additional
criteria are also met, such fixes are for someone else to apply.

> >>  - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
> >>    whitespace cleanups, etc.)
> 
> This and the "it must fix a problem" are basically saying the same thing.

Not at all.  Let me put it this way.

If a change that fixes a problem is included in a patch with another
change that makes trivial changes (typo fix, say), the patch will
be rejected.

The statement:

    "It must fix a problem and it must _not_ contain anything else,
     such as 'trivial' fixes."

is _obviously_ not the same as:

    "It must fix a problem."

(Notice how quickly even the obvious becomes unobvious ...;).

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
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/