[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13



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.

Attachment: pgp00001.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]