Re: kernel-patch-amd64
- To: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: kernel-patch-amd64
- From: Matthias Urlichs <smurf@smurf.noris.de>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:33:06 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] pan.2004.07.01.13.33.06.24452@smurf.noris.de>
- References: <20040629160326.GB15927@lowpingbastards.de> <hhbrj2bafa.fsf@alsvidh.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de> <20040629221402.GJ12308@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040630063005.GA22252@pegasos> <20040630064710.GN12308@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040630070123.GA22654@pegasos> <20040630070646.GO12308@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040630072017.GA22893@pegasos> <20040630072456.GP12308@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20040630073445.GC22893@pegasos>
Hi, Sven Luther wrote:
> And sorry, upto now, your only arguments where dogma, white space and the
> monolitic nature of the patch.
If you s/dogma/experience with handling kernel patches/, all three points
are entirely valid reasons to reject a patch. (NB: you want "were".)
Split the thing now. You'll save yourself a whole lot of future work,
bugs, and frustration.
Besides, submitting the patch Upstream requires that this work gets
done anyway. Andrew/Linus won't consider applying big one-hunk patches.
--
Matthias Urlichs
Reply to: