From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261447AbTJCXLH (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:11:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261448AbTJCXLH (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:11:07 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:8094 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261447AbTJCXK7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:10:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:02:24 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Nick Piggin Cc: willy@debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: must-fix list reconciliation Message-Id: <20031003160224.6737b593.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <3F7DFE52.9010400@cyberone.com.au> References: <3F7D3F37.1060005@cyberone.com.au> <20031003113437.GL24824@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20031003083640.61dcf517.rddunlap@osdl.org> <3F7DFE52.9010400@cyberone.com.au> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: +5V?h'hZQPB9kW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:55:14 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote: | Randy.Dunlap wrote: | | >On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:34:37 +0100 Matthew Wilcox 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