Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:03:32 +0200
To: Dan Aloni <da-x@monatomic.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] automatic CC generation for patch submission
Message-ID: <20070630110331.GG10398@flower.upol.cz>
References: <20070630023451.GA21593@localdomain> <E1I4TDU-00023A-Nc@flower> <20070630030854.GA1297@localdomain> <20070630102246.GF10398@flower.upol.cz> <20070630102601.GA24044@localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20070630102601.GA24044@localdomain>
Organization: Palacky University in Olomouc, experimental physics department.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: Oleg Verych <olecom@flower.upol.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1201
Lines: 30

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:26:01PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
[]
> > As you will see, nobody cares about comprehensive
> > patches/tests/bugs/testers/developers *tracking* system.
> > 
> > And don't limit yourself to fast conclusions. Thanks.
> 
> I am not proposing a comprehensive tracking system. I think
> you are taking my intentions quite off-course.

Don't you think that organized (i.e. Cc *management*: tracking system
sends copies to _interested people_, as it was recorded earlier, or
changed due to bouncing or off-line people; by-patch tracking
of changes, tests, bugs, rc-bugs) way of dealing with patches is bad,
but yet another fancy SPAM generator script and mess in
___kernel sources___ is OK just for publishing one's patches-ches-es?

Having seen how bitkeeper improved *management* things in 2.5 - early2.6
period, i have no problem to blame propositions as yours.

Heck, going to be another useless post...
---
-o--=O`C
 #oo'L O
<___=E M
-
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/