linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

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: <20080501000131.GB1559@pe.Belkin>
Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:01:31 -0400
From:	Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker@....net>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 04:57:38PM -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
>>> history has shown that developers do not stop developing if their patches are
>>> not accepted, they just fork and go their own way.
>>
>> That's mostly when they feel that they are treated unfairly.
>>
>> OTOH, insisting that your patches should be merged at the same rate that you're
>> able to develop them is unreasonable to me.
>
> it's not nessasarily the individuals that fork, it's the distros who want 
> to include the fixes and other changes that the individuals that create the 
> fork.

Is that really bad?  Isn't that effectively equivalent to "increased testing of
earlier intergrations"?

-chris
--
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/