[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090506190408.GC6897@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 20:04:08 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-current
tree
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:31:38AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> I don't know exactly how defconfigs are handled, but I can imagine that
> the responsible developer is running "make oldconfig" on the system in
> question from times to times and copying the result back to the
> defconfig file. The purpose of updating defconfig files is to make
> configuration option renames transparent.
The big problem is that everyone 'make oldconfig' is done, the entire
config file essentially gets re-sorted into some other random order,
and the changes are massive.
If a platform maintainer does this, and the result is committed, and
some other person has done some small sed-based updates to the defconfigs,
the result is _total_ chaos.
That's why I'm arguing for my approach. That way, platform maintainers
stand a better chance of seeing what happens to their defconfig files
and there's a substantially better chance of some coordination of those
changes (that is if the arch maintainer is doing their job properly.)
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists