Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

From: arjan@fenrus.demon.nl
Date: Sun Apr 21 2002 - 11:02:19 EST


In article <E16yx1z-0000jV-00@starship> you wrote:

> It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC]. Now the
> typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed
> individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least,
> that's my impression of the trend.

I disagree with you here. A short 2.5 list:

BIO - Jens posted patches for MONTHS to lkml (or changelogs with the patch
      on kernel.org); plenty of room for discussion
O(1) scheduler - discussed quite a bit on lkml before Linus merged it
Preempt - discussed to the extreme before being merged
Ratcache - posted for months and discussed a lot on lkml
Andrew Morten's death-to-buffer - posted to lkml quite a bit, but of course
         it needs to work before it can be judged
VFS - you already said that you can see what's going on here

Now that leaves drivers and stuff. Well, for drivers, the maintainer
submitting updates, especially minor ones, directly to Linus
or the subsystem maintainer is fine by me.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:29 EST