Hi Greg, On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 19:19 +0200, ext Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 07:28:13PM +0300, Ameya Palande wrote: > > > As Intel is ultimately responsible for distributing and maintaining this > > > kernel tree, having someone within intel to "own" each patch in the same > > > manner makes lots of sense as well. > > > > In Moblin days this was a perfect argument. But things should change > > when this kernel became part of MeeGo project which is a joint effort > > between Intel and Nokia. Is this insider information which is not made > > public that only Intel is ultimately responsible for the kernel? > > No, not at all. Look at the kernel package, the bugzilla owners of > kernel bugs, and who is doing all the work and "ownership" here.
Again I agree to this when you talk in context of Moblin. Since Moblin only had support for Intel hardware you could see all @intel addresses everywhere, but now it is not true. I think Nokia has already started patch submission for N900 support. Naturally all the bugs related to this should be assigned to Nokia instead of Intel. So I fail to understand your argument about Intel doing all the work and all the kernel bugs being assigned to Intel. > > If we are going to integrate patches which enable different > > functionality on Nokia N900 into MeeGo kernel, then I don't think Intel > > would like to "own" those patches. And I don't think they would liked to > > be blamed for the same ;) > > Then who should? That is not important at this point. First we should have an agreement about the conflict, then we can always come up with a person/entity. My point is that Intel alone shouldn't be the maintainer of kernel when MeeGo officially supports non Intel (ARM) hardware. How can an Intel employee take responsibility of a patch written for an ARM device? > > > So I would recommend just leaving it alone, unless you want to maintain > > > the whole kernel package for intel yourself? :) > > > > I disagree :( There should be room to accommodate kernel maintainers > > apart from Intel. > > I agree, unfortunatly things to not seem to be set up that way at the > moment. Agreed, thats why this discussion is going on :) > In Intel's defense, they have been _very_ responsive and helpful with > any kernel-related issue. Agreed! Cheers, Ameya. _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
