Re: The direction linux is taking

[Richard Gooch]

Rik van Riel writes:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course the patch will be updated when needed, but I still
> > > have a few 6-month old patches lying around that still work
> > > as expected and don't need any change.
> >
> > Sure. Automatic re-mailing can be part of the maintainership, if the
> > testing of the validity of the patch is also automated (ie add a
> > automated note that says that it has been verified).
> 
> Patch-bombing you with useless stuff has never been my
> objective. I just want to make sure valid patches get
> re-sent to you as long as there is a reason to believe
> they still need to be sent.
> 
> As soon as any hint arrives that the patch shouldn't be
> sent right now (a change was made to any of the files the
> patch applies to, I see something suspect in the changelog,
> the patch was applied, a reply was mailed to the patch...)
> the patch will be moved away for manual inspection.
> 
> I guess I'll also build in some kind of backoff to make sure
> the patch gets sent less often if you're not interested or too
> busy.

If you get this working nicely, it might even be a generally useful
thing. A set of perl scripts and easy interface commands could prove
popular. I would certainly find it convenient to have a patch
retransmission system that re-sent patches every time a new pre-patch
came out, and emailed me when the patch no longer applies. If it could
automatically de-queue when the patch is applied, or when I manually
remove it, that would be even better. And if I make an update to a
queued patch, it obsoletes the old one, that would be good too.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]