On 08/16/2016 09:04 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.08.16 10:53, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
Johann, what you are posting here is really not helpful in any
way.
It's helpful in that way of letting people know that you have chosen to
deviating from upstream first is policy so people can submit work which
has not been accepted in other upstreams.
Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is
interested seeing it property integrated into systemd. Anywork related
to that could not be started *until* he had his stuff merged in the
upstream kernel however now anyone can have anything not upstreamed
implemented in systemd.
Yes, we generally want a clear upstreaming perspective for kernel
changes we support. But we have merged support for stuff that wasn't
upstream yet before (most prominently: kdbus), and we will continue to
do so in future. Yes, it would be great if cgroupvs2 would be fully
merged in the upstream kernel, but given that in most parts it
actually is and it provides systemd with major benefits to its core, I
think it's fine to merge the support for cgroupsv2 already.
Yes kdbus is a good example why this should not be done.
Why not just have an experimental repository for out of tree, un-merged
stuff upstream and those that want to use/rely/test that stuff can build
and run it downstream?
JBG
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
