>On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:40:24AM -0300, Horst von Brand wrote:
>> > [Extremely interesting new syscall mechanism tread elided]
>> > What happened to "feature freeze"?
>> *bites lip* it's fairly low impact *duck*.
>However, it's a fair question.
>I've been wondering how to formalize patch acceptance at code freeze, but
>it might be a good idea to start talking about some way to maybe put
>brakes on patches earlier, ie some kind of "required approval process".
>I think the system call thing is very localized and thus not a big issue,
>but in general we do need to have something in place.
>I just don't know what that "something" should be. Any ideas? I thought
>about the code freeze require buy-in from three of four people (me, Alan,
>Dave and Andrew come to mind) for a patch to go in, but that's probably
>too draconian for now. Or is it (maybe start with "needs approval by two"
>and switch it to three when going into code freeze)?
I think there should be a distinction between changes which make an
API change/new function/user interface change, versus bug fixes,
adapting to new APIs, documentation, etc.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/