2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

DHollenbeck Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:25:57 -0800

I had hoped that the proper discipline in rejecting non-critical patches would have pertained. I remain unconvinced that the .y releases are anything but noise that should have been kept elsewhere. After reading through a patch summary, I see this as typical:


----------------------


     ChangeSet 2005/02/22 20:56:28-05:00, bunk @ stusta.de
     <http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/cset/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
     [diffview]
     
<http://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/testing/cset/[EMAIL
 PROTECTED]>

[PATCH] drivers/net/via-rhine.c: make a variable static const

This patch makes a needlessly global variable static const.

Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

----------------------------------

It's possible I simply don't get it, but the above description of a patch hardly seems like it would qualify for the intentions of the 2.6.x.y series.

Is this typical, and is this in line with the intent of the x.y series?

If this is going to achieve the objective, the gatekeeper has to be a real stubborn, unpopular horse's ass it seems, with a sign on his forehead that reads: GO AWAY AND COME ANOTHER DAY!

Somewhat disappointedly,

Dick

--
Please help fix the U.S. software industry before it is too late.
Contact your U.S. representatives with this information:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/industry-at-risk.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041003041632172


-
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/

2.6.x.y gatekeeper discipline

Reply via email to