|From:||Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap-AT-oracle.com>|
|To:||Greg KH <gregkh-AT-suse.de>|
|Subject:||Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)|
|Date:||Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:04:29 -0700|
|Cc:||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 > 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. -- ~Randy
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds