On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:44:24 +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: > > * Patrick Caulfield <caulfield sistina com> [011026 10:56]: > > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote: > > > > Two questions: > > 1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still > > need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than > > the older one, isn´t it? > > It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel is > *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches haven't > been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but > won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre. Did Linus say why? I ask this because Linus' submission policy is that you send patches to him repeatedly (ever two or three weeks) until he acknowledges them. Linus frequently gets behind in his E-mail, so he just deletes everything he hasn't seen. I have included below a message from Linus which I saved about sending patches to him. -Paul On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote to LKML: > Most importantly, when sending patches to me: > > - specify clearly that you really want to see them in the standard > kernel, and why. I occasionally get patches that just say "this is a > good idea". I don't apply them. Especially if they are cc'd to somebody > else too, in which case I pretty much assume that it's a RFC, not a > "real patch". > > - do NOT send patches in attachements. Send one patch per mail, in > clear-text under your message, so that I can easily see the patch and > decide then-and-there whether it looks ok. And if it doesn't look ok, > and I do a "reply", the patch gets included in the reply so that I can > point out which part of the patch I dislike. > > Don't worry about sending me five emails. That's FINE. I much prefer > seeing five consecutive emails from the same person with five distinct > subject lines and five distinct patches, than seeing one email with > five attachements to it. > > - if your email system is broken, and you want to send patches as > attachements to avoid whitspace damage, then please FIX YOUR EMAIL > SYSTEM INSTEAD. > > - Don't point to web-sites. If I have to move the mouse outside my email > xterm to work on the email, your email just got ignored. > > - Make your patches one sub-directory under the source tree you're > working on. In short, your patches should look like something like > > --- clean/fs/inode.c ... > +++ linux/fs/inode.c .. > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ > ... > > so that I can (regardless of where my source tree is) apply them > with "patch -p1" from my linux top directory. Then I can just do a > > cd v2.4/linux > patch -p1 < ~/multiple-emails-with-multiple-accepted-patches > > and not have to worry about three patches being based on > /usr/src/linux, while two others not having a path at all and being > individual filenames in linux/drivers/net. > > - and finally: re-send. If I had laser-eye surgery the fay you sent the > patches, I won't have applied them. If I took a day off and spent it > with the kids at the pool instead, I won't have applied them. If I > decided that this weekend I'm not going to read email for a change, I > won't have applied them. > > And when I come back to work a day or two later, I will have several > hundred other emails to work through. I never go backwards in my > emails.
Description: PGP signature