[linux-dvb] patch collection for Kernel 2.6.16-rc1
hermann.pitton at onlinehome.de
Sun Feb 5 02:27:08 CET 2006
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 00:20 +0100 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:10:37AM +0100, Oliver Endriss wrote:
> > Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > > Hello Uwe,
> > >
> > > I made some mistakes in my handling of patch conflicts. I wouldn't
> > > have thought that you would take this personally, nor could I have
> > > imagined what effects it would have on your views of my person
> > > and linux-dvb development as a whole.
> > > ...
> > > During my creating the patchset for akpm for 2.6.13-mm?, I found
> > > that akpm had already applied a patch from Uwe to
> > > Documentation/dvb/bt8xx.txt, which conflicted with other changes
> > > made by Manu in CVS, and which also deleted some IMHO useful
> > > information from the file. First I tried to merge the two
> > > conflicting changes, but it looked like I would've ended up
> > > rewriting the whole file by doing so. After about 10min I gave up.
> > The real problem is that patches were accepted at akpm which should be
> > discussed here and nowhere else. akpm should reject these and forward
> > them to the appropriate subsystem mailing list or maintainer.
> > Information flow must go from DVB/V4L repository to kernel, not vice
> > versa (there are some exceptions but they do not apply in this case).
> Andrew includes many patches into -mm, but usually doesn't forward them
> to Linus without maintainer approval. Instead, he forwards non-approved
> patches to the maintainers of the code being changed.
> This helps in reducing the number of patches being lost.
> Therefore, it's not unusual that Andrew accepted a patch by Uwe, but I
> was very surprised if Andrew had forwarded such a patch to Linus without
> maintainer approval.
> > Oliver
I think we see first symptoms of a severe bureaucracy problem,
as always introduced by the hope of more rain soon :8
I'm still willing to read Uwe's rant as some cry of despair and not as
an cold assault.
... and I don't know how to serve it better with what we have.
At least, those latest "new rules" have changed a lot, concerning to be
mentioned in the kernel after some work ...
Some don't want it at all and some others are frustrated ;)
Seems there is a some gap.
More information about the linux-dvb