Re: must-fix list reconciliation

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

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 09:18:59 +1000 Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:

| 
| 
| Randy.Dunlap wrote:
| 
| >On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 08:55:14 +1000 Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
| >
| >
| snip
| 
| >| 
| >| 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.
| >
| 
| I don't know what the criteria is. It would help lazy people send 
| patches. If
| its in the tree they might, if they have to check if they've got the newest
| version and download it from somewhere else, they won't.
| 
| I was thinking it could become a criteria (obviously with exceptions) for
| feature / code freezes. I don't know what Linus or Andrew or anyone else 
| think about this though.
| 
| 
| snip
| 
| >
| >| 
| >| 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.
| >
| 
| Well if its on the wiki you still need a janitor at least. The shouldfix 
| list
| there is beginning to look like peoples' personal todo lists.
| 
| >
| >| 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.
| >| 
| >
| snip
| 
| >| 
| >| 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.
| >
| 
| No, both

OK, I don't really care where it is.
If you are willing to keep it updated, you get to choose where
it lives (IMO).

--
~Randy