Re: [PATCH] Documentation/SendingPatches [2 of 2].

From: Eli Carter (
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 15:41:01 EST

Rob Landley wrote:
> The bit about log rolling.
> --- linux-new/Documentation/SubmittingPatches 2003-06-11 15:54:29.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-new/Documentation/SubmittingPatches2 2003-06-11 15:54:06.000000000 -0400
> @@ -92,6 +92,16 @@
> complete, that is OK. Simply note "this patch depends on patch X"
> in your patch description.
> +In politics, there's a concept called "log rolling", where unrelated
> +amendments are bundled together so that changes people want grease the
> +way for changes they don't. Do not do this. It's annoying.
> +
> +In coding, this sort of thing can be very subtle, such as performance increases
> +that help your new version perform as well as the original while doing more
> +work, but which could also have been applied to the original making it even
> +faster. The linux-kernel guys are very good at taking the chocolate coating
> +and leaving the pill behind. This can be very frustrating to developers, but
> +it's one of the big reasons open source produces such excellent results.

They are also likely to tell _you_ to take the pill out, clean up the
chocolate, and resubmit; and that takes more of _your_ time.

(And I do like that you broke the log rolling change out; very good
object lesson. :) )

--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a) `-------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:29 EST