SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
Posted Jun 24, 2010 7:12 UTC (Thu) by mingo
In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
repeated statements that it's being shipped with distro X and therefor it should be merged don't work
While i agree with the gist of your posting, i'd like to insert a qualification to this statement: if a piece of out-of-tree code is in a distribution then that certainly strengthens that code, and strengthens the case for upstream inclusion as well.
Especially if a piece of out-of-tree code is included in a big Linux distribution then upstream maintainers do not ignore it. There's reasons why distributions get big, out of the pool of literally hundreds of baby distributions - and technical incompetence is certainly not amongst those reasons.
So upstream kernel maintainers definitely must not ignore cases where a distribution chooses to include a big chunk of out-of-tree code. Distribution developers are often closer to users/customers and feel the pain of user suffering more directly than upstream maintainers.
So distribution developers asking for upstream inclusion is very much material. (And if upstream is being stupid then the requests should be repeated ;-) Many of our best features were first test-driven in distributions.
On the other hand, non-developer users of those distributions asking for inclusion, especially if they lack the technical expertise to make the case for upstream inclusion (and i suspect this was the main case you meant) is certainly counter-productive.
to post comments)