Care to share your stats?
Posted Jun 3, 2010 10:02 UTC (Thu) by khim
In reply to: Upstream first policy
Parent article: A suspend blockers post-mortem
From want I'm seeing the companies which employ 'upstream first' tactic routinely fail in marketplace. And this understandable: they can not ship stuff when there is market demand for it - they are stuck with pleasing the upstream.
Sure, if you'll try to support you changes indefinitely it'll become huge drain over time and you'll lose too - so you need to upstream your changes at some time. Sometimes different solution is accepted, not what you proposed initially - but that's not a problem, the goal is to solve the problem end-users are having, not to have your code in kernel. This is how RedHat worked for a long time (till they got enough clout in kernel community to muscle through their changes without much effort), this is how successful embedded developers work (including Google), etc. Novell tried to play 'upstream first' game and the end result does not look good for the company (even if it's may be good for the kernel).
If you have stats which show that 'upstream first' is indeed the best policy for the developers, please share them - I've certainly heard this claim often enough, but rarely, if ever, with numbers.
The only exception are "leaf" drivers which don't change any infrastructure at all and are usually accepted without even looking - here upstreaming is so cheap that it really makes sense to do this.
to post comments)