On 1/3/08, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > This is something i was thinking to suggest. > > Kernel is made of a lot of different "areas" and the regression list > > is a great tool for monitoring every single area so why not opening a > > new branch and accepting patches only for areas which are not in the > > current regression list.? > > Some regressions can't be easily associated with an "area". And when > they can, consider the overhead involved with frequently kicking out > patchsets and taking them in again, based on when regressions become > known and when they are fixed, respectively. > > > Sounds like a good way to be more strict about regressions and > > incentive people to solve regressions quicker. > > To create such a motivation, that branch or tree would have to have a > practical use in development. So what purpose would such a tree > fulfill, considering that we already have a myriad of topic trees and > the -mm tree for testing and preintegration?
That branch/tree would relax i bit the rule of "two weeks for merging new stuff" for people who proven to have merged good quality code. Ciao, -- Paolo http://paolo.ciarrocchi.googlepages.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
