Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:57:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:57:38 -0500 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:60844 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:57:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:57:29 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Rob Landley Cc: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Eli Carter , Georg Nikodym , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Tom Rini , Daniel Phillips , Alexander Viro , Linux Kernel List Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin Message-ID: <20020130175729.N22323@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Rob Landley , Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Eli Carter , Georg Nikodym , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Tom Rini , Daniel Phillips , Alexander Viro , Linux Kernel List In-Reply-To: <3C586C8D.2C100509@inet.com> <20020130143608.I22323@work.bitmover.com> <20020130231701.FKGV22669.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@there> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020130231701.FKGV22669.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@there>; from landley@trommello.org on Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 06:18:11PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > And you just lost some useful information. The fact that so-and-so did > > fix A and then did B is actually useful. It tells me that A didn't work > > and B does. You think it's "crap" and by tossing it dooms all future > > developers to rethink the A->B transition. > > I'll see your rant and raise you a nickel. > If developers can't ever make temporary changes to their tree which they do > NOT intend to send to linus, they can't FUNCTION. (Except my not doing > development in said tree.) Of course they can do that. They get to decide what they push and what they don't. I don't think you understand BK. What we are talking about is the problem that the change has been committed to CVS, other changes are built on top of it, and now Linus realizes that the change was bad news. The problem is extracting stuff out of the middle which has already been built upon for more stuff. How would you propose solving that problem because that is the problem statement? If someone sends Linus a patch, he checks into BK or CVS or whatever, he then gets 5 other patches and applies them in BK/CVS, and THEN he wants to take out the first patch, how would you suggest we do that? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/