From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261332AbVFMUeI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:34:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261331AbVFMUat (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:30:49 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:38648 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261303AbVFMU2f (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 16:28:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread From: Daniel Walker Reply-To: dwalker@mvista.com To: karim@opersys.com Cc: paulmck@us.ibm.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Bill Huey , Lee Revell , Tim Bird , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, pmarques@grupopie.com, bruce@andrew.cmu.edu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ak@muc.de, sdietrich@mvista.com, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <42ADEC0E.4020907@opersys.com> References: <20050610223724.GA20853@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610225231.GF6564@g5.random> <20050610230836.GD21618@nietzsche.lynx.com> <20050610232955.GH6564@g5.random> <20050611014133.GO1300@us.ibm.com> <20050611155459.GB5796@g5.random> <20050611210417.GC1299@us.ibm.com> <42AB7857.1090907@opersys.com> <20050612214519.GB1340@us.ibm.com> <42ACE2D3.9080106@opersys.com> <20050613144022.GA1305@us.ibm.com> <42ADE334.4030002@opersys.com> <1118693033.2725.21.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> <42ADEC0E.4020907@opersys.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: MontaVista Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:28:15 -0700 Message-Id: <1118694495.2725.32.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 16:26 -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote: > Daniel Walker wrote: > > I think this is mistake. Projects that create separation like this are > > begging for the community to reject them. I see this as a design for > > one, instead of design for many mistake. From what I've seen, a project > > would want to do as much clean integration as possible. > > I understand what you're saying, but based on the feedback > PREEMPT_RT has gotten up until now, and now outright suggestions > that the debate is not even relevant to the LKML, I think that > some people are trying to give those interested a hint: integration > with mainline code is NOT on the agenda. I wouldn't work on RT if mainline integration wasn't on the agenda. > Some may want to continue trying to force-feed mainstream > maintainers. I can't stop anyone from trying, that's for sure. > However, I think what I'm suggesting is a reasonable compromise: > mainstream maintainers don't need to care about RT on a day-to- > day basis and the RT folks get to be part of mainline. There is going to be positive , and negative discussion on this. I think in the end the maintainers (Linus, and Andrew) don't want "people" to get a patch or modification from the outside. It's best if the community is not separated .. If you make a clean integration , and people want what you are doing, there is no reason for it to be rejected. Daniel