Re: must-fix list reconciliation

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:55:14 +1000 Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:

| Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| 
| >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:34:37 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org> wrote:
| >
| >| On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 07:19:51PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
| >| > Hi everyone,
| >| > As you might or might not know, the must-fix / should-fix lists have been
| >| > inadvertently forked. We are merging them again, so please don't update
| >| > the wiki until we have worked out what to do with them. This should be a
| >| > day or two at most.
| >| > 
| >| > I had the idea that maybe we could put them into the source tree, and
| >| > encourage people to keep them up to date by making them become criteria
| >| > for the feature and code freeze. Comments?
| >| 
| >| I'm a little disappointed that after I spent time converting them into
| >| the wiki form, you're now proposing abandoning them again.  This seems
| >| like a retrograde step.
| >| 
| >
| 
| To be honest I don't really like the wiki. I'd rather changes go through
| lkml where its easier to discuss them and keep up with them. Thats just my
| preference though. I don't know what anyone else thinks.

I don't quite see how they belong in the kernel source tree,
although I don't mind...  That's not where I would expect to find
the list, though.  I would expect it more on kernel.org e.g.

| >| What I'd be more interested in doing is combining the must- and should-
| >| fix lists.  As a first pass, just put all the must-fix items on the
| >| should-fix list at pri 4.  One of the things I did was delete the things
| >| that appeared on both lists.  This would obviously be easier if they
| >| were in one list ;-)
| >
| 
| Yes, and even easier if there was just one editor.
| eg. there 2 drivers/acpi sections in the mustfix list on wiki.

One editor if it's in a "file" vs. being in a wiki.

| I'd like to keep the 2 lists seperate. The must-fix list is concise and easy
| to scan the whole thing. I guess this isn't a problem if there is one 
| editor.
| 
| >Agreed on that.  I think the location is not the problem (whether
| >source tree or wiki), it's just an extra step to keep them updated,
| >and having no owner (or _many_ owners) often doesn't work.
| >Is one of you (or the two of you) willing to be the owner/editor?
| >
| 
| If it ends up going into a source tree, I can be the editor / maintainer.

of only must-fix and not should-fix??
I wouldn't want to see should-fix abandoned.

--
~Randy