From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: debian developer <debiandev@gmail.com>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
tux3@tux3.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
corbet@lwn.net
Subject: Re: [Tux3] Current Activities?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 09:52:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090806075246.GA6860@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200908010942.52623.phillips@phunq.net>
* Daniel Phillips <phillips@phunq.net> wrote:
> [...] I will say this now: if we are invited to merge in the next
> major release, or in -mm or whatever, we will happily do it. If we
> are not invited to merge, nobody has any cause to complain about
> progress slowing down. [...]
The thing is, if you are waiting for an 'invite to upstream Linux
merge' that could be a _very_ long wait: i've yet to see a single
one ever since i started hacking Linux ~14 years ago ;-)
The model that Linux has been following for the past 10+ years is
for new kernel projects to request inclusion. I.e. you push your
patches upstream: you send patches and a pull request to the
appropriate people/lists such as lkml.
This is done so because merging patches is a fundamentally
hierarchical process, and the people merging _your_ patches are the
real maintenance bottleneck, not you.
So it is not Linus and other maintainers who are searching the web
for projects to merge and sending out 'invites' but the other way
around: projects try to get upstream by submitting patches (which
get reviewed and accepted or rejected).
So if you'd like your code to be merged upstream you better start
this process now - this alone can take a lot of time: months (or
years in certain cases). But it is still a much shorter time-span
than an 'invite to merge' ;-)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-06 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <6dcc37b30904291901m7abdd6d7q6f44b2c248ec48c4@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <200904302049.27235.phillips@phunq.net>
2009-07-31 9:10 ` debian developer
2009-08-01 16:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2009-08-01 22:26 ` Theodore Tso
2009-08-06 7:52 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-08-08 23:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2009-08-10 12:26 ` debian developer
2009-08-10 13:29 ` Theodore Tso
2009-08-10 14:19 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2009-08-10 17:34 ` david
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090806075246.GA6860@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=debiandev@gmail.com \
--cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phillips@phunq.net \
--cc=tux3@tux3.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®