From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756340AbYEAB0f (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:26:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753500AbYEAB0K (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:26:10 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:35675 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753236AbYEAB0J (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:26:09 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:25:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Adrian Bunk cc: Andrew Morton , rjw@sisk.pl, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! In-Reply-To: <20080501005727.GO29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Message-ID: References: <20080429.190352.137408408.davem@davemloft.net> <200804302245.50817.rjw@sisk.pl> <200805010023.32213.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080430154124.7ec08dd4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080501005727.GO29330@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 May 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > One big problem I see is Linus wanting to merge all drivers regardless > of the quality. That's not what I said. What I said was that I think we get *better* quality by merging early. In other words, you're turning the whole argument on its head, and incorrectly so. I claim that you are the one that is arguing for *worse* quality, by arguing for a process that is KNOWN to tend to generate bad code (out-of-tree drivers) as opposed to one that tends to fix things over time (and note the "tends" in both cases - there are counter-examples, but the trend is so clear that anybody who disputes it would seem to be either blind or lying). So here's my challenge: give me *one* reason to believe that quality improves more out-of-tree than it does in-tree, and then you'll have a point. But you'd better be able to explain the ton of historical data we have that proves otherwise. Until you do that, your blathering is just that - total blathering. The process I advocate is the one that has historical data on its side. Yours is just a failed theory. Linus