Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:57:29 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin |
| |
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. > > <rant>
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/
| |