* Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2013 9:28 AM, "Ingo Molnar" <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > How on earth can anyone, against all that evidence, still
> > claim that it's a net minus?
>
> Because I don't think there is any reason for mixing up the
> projects. Why do you not just make it separate? Everything you
> claim is such a big deal would still work perfectly well.
>
> Every time you talk about "negative" it's as of the project
> wouldn't exist if it was external. Which is total bull, since
> it is effectively external already. [...]
That's not actually true. If you check the list of early
tools/kvm/ contributors you will see an overlap with -tip
contributors. I know tools/kvm/ developers who just use their
existing -tip repo to pick up the latest. They are using the
-tip commit notifications to see what went in and what not, etc.
Claiming that because the contribution model works to a certain
degree integrated into a small Linux subsystem tree it does not
ever have to go upstream is so wrong on so many levels ...
The most likely correct statement would be something like: "if
it worked on a small scale it will probably work even better
with more exposure on a larger scale." We'll never know that
though.
( That is also why some of the focus was on lockdep - knowing
that it's close in terms of maintenance distance made it an
easier topic - socially. )
Since I'm using it on an almost daily basis to test out failed
bzImages, and because I (mistakenly) thought it had some
upstream chances, I found it good to help out (a bit) with
maintenance and code review.
While it works it's obviously limited - there's just so many
-tip developers and I thought everyone would benefit from this
going the next natural step.
> [...] And it will stay that way. You are just in denial and
> trying to say that integrating it would somehow help.
>
> And I claim it wouldn't. It works fine outside already. Just
> ADMIT it.
So tools/kvm/ works 'just fine' - in its current limited form -
because for the developers involved it's already "upstream", for
the first hop of upstream.
So basically Pekka optimistically thought it's an eventual 'tit
for tat', a constant stream of benefits to the kernel, in the
hope of finding a home in the upstream kernel which would
further help both projects. The kernel wants to keep the 'tit'
only though.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
