| |||||||||||||
Upstream first policyUpstream first policyPosted Jun 3, 2010 14:56 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: Upstream first policy by corbet Parent article: A suspend blockers post-mortem
Agreed, a focus on maintainability is important. But which is more maintainable? Merging existing, working, widely deployed code - or forcing developers like Google to stay out-of-tree for five years?
My point is that the fact that some code is already being used on millions of devices and works *now* should carry some weight, even in assessing future maintainability. (It's much more likely that little-used features will suffer code rot, no matter what their conceptual purity.) At the moment it appears to get no weight at all.
(Log in to post comments)
Upstream first policy Posted Jun 3, 2010 16:54 UTC (Thu) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
Of course it got weight...tons of weight. If it hadn't we wouldn't be talking about this now.
Also, the "millions of devices" is a red herring. It is just a handful of different devices, all of the same class. The kernel developers need a solution that works for a vast range of devices over the long haul.
|
|||||||||||||