linux-kernel - Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

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]

Message-ID: <20080212191914.GB20883@kroah.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:19:14 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, arjan@...radead.org,
	sfr@...b.auug.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-))

On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:59:00AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > In other words, I'm perfectly happy to be an a*hole and tell people that I 
> > simply won't merge things that cause undue API churn at all, and that were 
> > not thought out sufficiently.
> 
> .. btw: I'd need to know this in advance. I usually don't see the problem 
> until it's too late.
> 
> And this is very much an area where "Linux-next" can help: if some 
> subsystem causes problems in Linux-next for other maintainers, I really 
> think it shouldn't just be a matter of "drop the git tree that didn't 
> merge cleanly", but it should literally be a question of "maybe we should 
> drop the _earlier_ git tree that caused the later one not to merge 
> cleanly".

We usually get this warning today in -mm.

> In other words, maybe things like core block layer changes or device model 
> changes should be *last* in the merge-list (or if first, also be first to 
> be dropped if they cause merge errors downstream!).
> 
> That way, infrastructure changes that screw up others can only happen if 
> the maintainer actively works with the others to make sure it works even 
> before it would ever merge into Linux-next successfully.
> 
> That may sound odd, but it actually matches what I personally believe in: 
> we have more driver code and other "outlying" things than we have core 
> things, and most of our problems come from that - so we should prioritize 
> *those* things, not the "fundmantal core changes".
> 
> So how about making that the default situation: drivers and other outliers 
> merge first. If fundamental API changes happen, they merge last, and if 
> their maintainers can't make it in time in the merge window, they just get 
> dropped.
> 
> That sure as hell would put the pain on API changes solidly where it 
> belongs.

Sure, I have no objection to that at all.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/