linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI pieces for the merge window

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:09:14 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] final SCSI pieces for the merge window

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 
> > OK, so it's no secret that I'm the last of the subsystem maintainers
> > whose day job isn't working on the linux kernel.  If you want a full
> > time person, who did you have in mind?
> 
> Quite frankly, at least for me personally, what I would rather have (in 
> general: this is really not at all SCSI-specific in any way, shape, or 
> form, and not directed at James!) is a less rigid maintainership 
> structure.
> 
> Let's face it, we are *all* likely to be overworked at different times, 
> and even when not overworked, it's just the fact that people need to take 
> a breather etc. And there is seldom - if ever - a very strong argument for 
> having one person per subsystem.

Am OK with all of that, but with a rider.  It would make my life even more
miserable if there was a (say) git-scsi-tweedledee and a
git-scsi-tweedledum.  We already have too much out-of-scope code turning up
in the git trees and having two trees explicitly modifying the same
subsystem would hurt.  It's also bad from an engineering POV: there's a
decent chance that when combined, they just won't work.

So Tweedledee and Tweedledum should both commit to the same tree, please.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/