On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 08:15:57PM -0800, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> Ok, I have a comment on that. Isn't one of the major goals of making
> kernels to build from a single source was to avoid the pain of having to
> deal with separate kbuild package? I consider it a major change, why
> wasn't it discussed on the list?
I tried to start as discussion but there was no response. Therefor
Frederik Schueler and I decided to use this fix.
> I have absolutely no clue why such change
> is required, and I don't think other members of the team do either.
Provide your own (better?) solution for the problem.
(Hint: You'll find that in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> As you can probably tell, I am not very happy with the way the kernel team
> operates. In the last few weeks commits with legitimate bugfixes by
> myself and other people have been reverted without explanation.
Maybe one legitimate bugfix within 10 commits which can't ever work?
> I have
> tried to start the discussion on what I consider an important issue -
> maintenance of out of tree modules - only to receive the feedback of 2
> (two) members of the kernel team (out of registered 28) and a message from
> Bastian effectively saying that something is already implemented,
Hu? I spook about the available solution to build the modules, not about
anything how to maintain them.
> The bug list is growing, initramfs generators
> are constantly buggy and we still cannot make a major release without
> screwing up the linux-headers in one way or another.
The bug is there since -rc4 and did not show up in my regular tests.
> What I would like to see is more attention to the quality assurance, and
> less to pushing new untested code into the archive, which leads to
> embarrassment for the team pretty much at every release.
Untested? It was both in the snapshots and experimental for one month or
longer.
Bastian
--
Change is the essential process of all existence.
-- Spock, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", stardate 5730.2
