Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:54792 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752326AbZFWTMG (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:12:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jake Edge cc: Krzysztof Halasa , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Pavel Machek , Greg KH , "corbet@lwn.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "tshibata@ab.jp.nec.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1415] Documentation: add documentation summary for rc-series and merge window In-Reply-To: <20090623130602.6cd6b713@chukar> Message-ID: References: <20090622222217.GH23972@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090623130602.6cd6b713@chukar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Jake Edge wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:52:02 +0200 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > > > Perhaps it's just me :-) but I think we're trying to codify the rules > > way too much. The general rules (merge window = new features etc) are > > obviously ok but why do we need strict details like intrusive vs > > non-intrusive etc? People should just use a common sense and good > > judgement and, if in doubt in some particular case, ask. We are unable > > to describe all situations in a single text file. > > Me2 :) Well, I do agree that documenting the rules and making them inflexible shouldn't be the primary goal. But the fact is, "common sense" hasn't worked very well. I consistently get pull requests from maintainers that have well-meaning "fix bugs" in them, and that cause a lot of totally pointless churn. In fact, this whole discussion has shown one thing: people still think that "bug fix" somehow automatically means that it's appropriate after the merge window. That's simply not so. Linus