|| ||Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap-AT-oracle.com>|
|| ||Greg KH <gregkh-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)|
|| ||Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:04:29 -0700|
|| ||Paul Mundt <lethal-AT-linux-sh.org>,
Parag Warudkar <parag.lkml-AT-gmail.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen-AT-suse.de>,
Jeff Mahoney <jeffm-AT-suse.de>|
>> ISTM that the real problems are (a) it's easier to introduce new staging/crap
>> than it is to fix EXPERIMENTAL and (b) no one wants to try to fix EXPERIMENTAL.
> The whole EXPERIMENTAL issue hasn't come up in years, I'm supprised that
> people even consider it a valid option these days.
> I'm all for fixing it up, but as Paul so well described, the code I'm
> talking about is WAY worse than a mere "experimental" marking, it needs
> to be explicitly pointed out that this is not even up to that level at
> And as was also pointed out, the EXPERIMENTAL marking cleanup is totally
> orthogonal to the main goal here, and that is getting code into the tree
> that is not up to our "normal" merge quality levels, in order to get a
> wider audience of users and developers working on it, and using it.
> Hey, if people want me to name it TAINT_GREGKH, I can do that, I thought
> I was being nice by picking TAINT_CRAP...
I don't disagree with the CRAP name... fwiw.
I think that we have enough quality problems without adding crap.
to post comments)