> Besides, old code is somewhat like an ancient building. Yes, it needs to be
> kept in a good shape, but you won't replace bricks in it just because they are
> old, will you?
When they matter to the integrity and they are likely to be full of
internal cracks and holes you do.
What concerns me m
On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 01:37 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> old code is somewhat like an ancient building. Yes, it needs to be
> kept in a good shape, but you won't replace bricks in it just because they are
> old, will you?
No, but you do have to replace/repoint the mortar
as it ages.
Here in
On Tuesday, April 07, 2015 09:28:03 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:31:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
> > > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
> > > changes do n
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I propose to send all this stuff though the trivial tree such that
> > maintainers
> > of other subsystems have less workload and newbies (which are supposed
> > to send such patches) know which tree they have to work against.
> >
Am 07.04.2015 um 15:21 schrieb Steven Rostedt:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:50:31PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>>
>>> As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
>>> trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
>>> changes do not get to go through a
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:31:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
> > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
> > changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless
> > explic
On 04/07/2015 07:18 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
>>> trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
>>
>> I totally agr
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:50:31PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >
> > As per the other branch of this tree; an emphatic NO to that. The
> > trivial tree is not a backdoor to bypass maintainers. Actual code
> > changes do not get to go through any tree but the maintainer tree unless
> > expli
On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 11:12 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I don't think you have answered PeterZ's
> legitimate technical question adequately:
As I wrote before, ~13000:180 is a big ratio.
http://www.kernelhub.org/?p=2&msg=718145
> what are the technological
> justifications for doing this 25 pat
On Tuesday, April 07, 2015 01:32:12 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree?
> > Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision.
> > But other main
Am 07.04.2015 um 13:32 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree?
>> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision.
>> But other maintainers might thi
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:28:27PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Can't we send all these kind of patches through the trivial tree?
> Don't get me wrong, if you are fine with these patches that's you decision.
> But other maintainers might think they have to take these patches and
> get overloa
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
>> trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
>
> I totally agree, it's not "against" t
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:18:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
> > > trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I s
* Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
> > trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
>
> I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 11:12:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Pointing out this truth and protecting against such abusive flood of
> trivial patches is not against the code of conduct I signed.
I totally agree, it's not "against" the code of conflict that I helped
write.
Joe, you know better th
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 11:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:46:17PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > > Use the normal return values for bool functions
> > > > >
> > > > > Update t
17 matches
Mail list logo
