LWN: Comments on "A look at a Linux kernel rejection"

A look at a Linux kernel rejection

yakker — Wed, 20 Nov 2002 19:43:25 +0000

I think your last comment based on Jonathan's summary is very short-sighted and shows that you didn't follow the entire thread.

LKCD has been going through major steps to get as much feedback from the Linux community (including Linus) for inclusion into the kernel. By garnering feedback, asking for thoughts, bug fixes, putting in features, modifying the project to meet the demands of the other kernel developers, etc., we expected that we had done everything asked of us by the community, for the community.

Your last sentence is clearly wrong, and if you doubt me, go back and read the threads. Go back and read the patch postings. Go back and read the comments from other kernel developers on what to change/fix/modify/etc.

Or better yet, don't, take my word for it, as I'm right, and do something more useful with your time (like code). It's what I _should_ be doing instead of replying to this.

--Matt

A look at a Linux kernel rejection

barbara — Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:07:17 +0000

Linus' explanation of why LKCD did not get into his kernel tree should be read by every kernel hacker who wants her/his patch merged into Linus' tree. He explains concisely, clearly and colourfully what he expects. The LKCD crew did everything possible to guarantee their patch would not get in the 2.5 kernel.

Barbara

A look at a Linux kernel rejection

Strike — Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:15:54 +0000

After reading Linus's explanation, backed by this article, I think it makes total sense. Sure, there was a bit of ego and posturing that was involved (like Linus not liking being caught off-guard by a sudden request for a relatively big merge), but his reasoning is quite sound. I really enjoy the points about how it is really a more vendor-driven feature, and I'm glad to see such a feature be excluded from the kernel proper. It, in some small way, re-establishes the "grass roots" feel of the kernel process. In spite of how it's become moderately automated and "colder" now, the least common denominator is still looked out for.