Re: using LKML for subsystem development

[Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:28:20 +0100
> 
>> Filter on all mails from David S. Miller if you are interested in 
>> networking topics. You'll have a really good grasp of what's going on in 
>> that area, without having to invest too much time.
> 
> That's a very poor filter, I don't write much code lately in the
> networking.
> 
> I only provide theoretical direction in a few specific areas I care
> about.
> 
> As Ingo already knows, I think this "put everything on lkml" argument
> is bogus.

If people started filtering by stefanr to follow IEEE 1394 subsystem
development, I would have to stop drawing myself into SCSI/ Kconfig menu
layout/ coding style related discussions and meta discussions such as
this.  Which might actually be a good move anyway.  :-)

> And about bisectability, every time I apply a networking patch I do at
> the very least a "allmodconfig" build with just that new patch added,
> for every patch.  Often I do more extensive build testing.
> 
> And when I rebase the tree, I rerun this check after each
> patch gets re-applied to a new base tree.
> 
> In fact I'm working on such issues as I fly over the Australia
> for LCA08 :-)
> 
> So this isn't an issue that posting to lkml is going to help.

Well, bisectability issues apparently occur primarily in the merge
result after merges of cross-subsystem changes.  So, things like the new
pre-merge tree which James Bottomley set up might actually help with
this issue.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ---= ==-=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/