Re: [patch 00/04] RFC: Staging tree (drivers/staging)
[Posted October 1, 2008 by jake]
| 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 |
| Message-ID: |
| <48DBFCDD.5090908@oracle.com> |
| 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> |
| 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.
--
~Randy