On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Anything else anyone can think of? Any objections to any of these? > I based them off of Linus's original list. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > ------ > > Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and what ones are not, into > the "linux-release" tree. > > - It can not bigger than 100 lines, with context. > - It must fix only one thing. > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a > problem..." type thing.) > - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things > marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, or a real security issue. > - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how > the race can be exploited. > - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, > whitespace cleanups, etc.)
Objections - no. Anything else - yes. I would like the requirement: "It must be obviously correct". In a hundred lines one can put a lot of tricky code and subtle changes. For example, if a security problem necessitates a nontrivial change, it should cause an earlier release of 2.6.x+1 instead of a 2.6.x.y+1. Andries - 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/
