On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Philip Prindeville <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/24/12 6:06 AM, Jonathan McCrohan wrote: >> I also see svn as part of the problem. I think a move towards the >> linux-kernel development model would be a great benefit. >> >> Using git would allow users to make many small fixes in their own tree >> and send single a pull request for fixes to x,y and z to a member of the >> patch review team for ACK or NAK who can then commit to master. >> Hopefully this will result in fewer stray patches. >> >> The original user will then show up in git blame and will make tracing >> errors far easier. Currently, unless you have commit rights, everything >> comes from one of the few core developers and you have to manually look >> up the changeset to figure out who is responsible for it. > > For those of us that submit fixes that then languish for months before being > committed, wouldn't that mean having to constantly rebase them?
Certainly, I do not want to fork this conversation further, and I would hope that if the time between submittal and application can be brought down that this ongoing problem will be reduced. It IS a pita however, and like many I'm willing to volunteer to help, and I've seen a few suggestions (like using git pulls from temporary repos to preserve ownership) go by that look like further improvements on the process. However, I would also like to find ways to deal with my other comment on this thread: "A second, large problem (in my mind), is that I would like to find a process for getting stuff upstream into the mainline kernel." Returning to handling the patch backlog: One way to perhaps help this is for the overall schedule to be more widely publicised and to work on more of a time based manner. In my case I've been trying to adhere to the kernel release schedule + .1 + X, where .1 is the first followup to the 'stable' kernel release, where X is the delta that it seems to take between a release and patches appearing. The ar71xx 3.1 process had 3? 4? patch sets go by that never made it into openwrt proper (and I rebased each time), and the 3.2 patch set landed a few days ago without (as best as I recall) public review. I'm delighted that it appears to work, but confess to having been a bit surprised. (I have been out of the loop for several weeks however) Would adding a 'Tested-by' email, to patch sets going by, be a helpful addition? It seems that also finding a way to track coverage sanely would be good addition, like: Tested-by: [email protected] Coverage: ag71xx Or on a proposed patch from a developer unable to fully test: Coverage-needed: mips, arm, x86 > > -Philip > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
