User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)

From:  Randy Dunlap <>
To:  Greg KH <>
Subject:  Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)
Date:  Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:04:29 -0700
Message-ID:  <>
Cc:  Paul Mundt <>, Parag Warudkar <>, Linus Torvalds <>, Andrew Morton <>,, Andreas Gruenbacher <>, Jeff Mahoney <>
Archive-link:  Article

>> 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
> all.
> 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.


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds