Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:45:41 +0100 | From | Stefan Richter <> | Subject | Re: using LKML for subsystem development |
| |
David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:28:20 +0100 > >> Filter on all mails from David S. Miller if you are interested in >> networking topics. You'll have a really good grasp of what's going on in >> that area, without having to invest too much time. > > That's a very poor filter, I don't write much code lately in the > networking. > > I only provide theoretical direction in a few specific areas I care > about. > > As Ingo already knows, I think this "put everything on lkml" argument > is bogus.
If people started filtering by stefanr to follow IEEE 1394 subsystem development, I would have to stop drawing myself into SCSI/ Kconfig menu layout/ coding style related discussions and meta discussions such as this. Which might actually be a good move anyway. :-)
> And about bisectability, every time I apply a networking patch I do at > the very least a "allmodconfig" build with just that new patch added, > for every patch. Often I do more extensive build testing. > > And when I rebase the tree, I rerun this check after each > patch gets re-applied to a new base tree. > > In fact I'm working on such issues as I fly over the Australia > for LCA08 :-) > > So this isn't an issue that posting to lkml is going to help.
Well, bisectability issues apparently occur primarily in the merge result after merges of cross-subsystem changes. So, things like the new pre-merge tree which James Bottomley set up might actually help with this issue. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- ---= ==-=- http://arcgraph.de/sr/
| |