Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But more recently I have discovered that quite a few key developers > develop against Linus' kernel and submit patches directly to him, > apparently bypassing Andrew. This leads to them holding back patches > when a release is approaching, rather than sending them straight to > Andrew for -mm and wider testing. This doesn't sound like a good > thing. >
Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for testing. Generally the owners of those trees make the decision as to which of their code has been sufficiently well-tested for a Linus merge, and when that should happen. > Now, I know our movement is all about freedom (and openness), and you > don't want to force developers into any behaviour patterns that aren't > essential, but I think it would be nice if there was some uniform > perspective on how patches should flow so that we all understood what > each other were doing. > > My own preference would be: > - all patches go to Andrew and appear in -mm promptly > - Linus only gets patches from -mm > - most patches are only passed to Linus after they have > been in an -mm release for at least .... 1 week (?) > - some patches go straight to Linus even before a -mm > release if maintainer + Andrew + Linus review and agree > - some patches stay in -mm for extended periods getting refined > before making their way to Linus. > - some patches get ditched from -mm and never make it to Linus. That's basically what happens now, except I don't physically send the patches from those 32 bk trees to Linus. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
