Hi Sergio, On Friday 11 June 2010 16:55:07 Aguirre, Sergio wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-media-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- > > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras > > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:43 AM > > To: Nagarajan, Rajkumar > > Cc: Laurent Pinchart; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; Hiremath, Vaibhav; > > linux-o...@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: Alternative for defconfig > > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Nagarajan, Rajkumar wrote: > > > 1. What is the alternative way of submitting defconfig changes/files to > > > > LO? > > I don't think defconfig changes are prohibited now. If I understand > correctly, Linus just hates the fact that there is a big percentage of > patches for defconfigs. Maybe he wants us to hold these, and better > provide higher percentage of actual code changes. > > What about holding defconfig changes in a separate branch, and just send > them for upstream once in a while, specially if there's a big quantity of > them in the queue? > > IMHO, defconfigs are just meant to make us life easier, but changes to them > should _never_ be a fix/solution to any problem, and therefore I understand > that those aren't a priority over regressions.
My understanding is that Linus will remove all ARM defconfigs in 2.6.36, unless someone can convince him not to. Board-specific defconfigs won't be allowed anymore, the number of defconfigs needs to be reduced drastically (ideally to one or two only). -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
