At Wed, 21 May 2008 11:25:25 -0700 (PDT), david@xxxxxxx wrote: > > On Wed, 21 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > [ The corrollary to this all is that when downstream does a merge, think > > about what the merge message can say. How would you descibe the merge? > > > > Can you give a good description of what you merged, and why? That's one > > thing that merging with releases can give you: you can say "merge with > > release 'xyz'", and people actually understand the *meaning* of it. Your > > merge message makes sense - and that implies that the merge itself > > likely made sense. > > > > If you cannot explain what and why you merged, you probably shouldn't be > > merging - that's a good rule of thumb right there! Maybe that rule in > > itself should already be seen as sufficient ] > > one thing that you have missed in your explination in this thread > (although you have made the point in other threads) is that subsystem > maintainers have the fear that there are other changes that will interfere > with their stuff and want to catch it early. > > per your instructions in prior threads, what they should do is to have a > seperate branch on their system that they use as a throw-away branch to > pull from your tree, and from their tree to spot problems. As they find > problems they can then address them (cherry pick, or whatever) > > so it's not that the ALSA people should only look at your tree at the > merge points, it's that they shouldn't pollute their tree that they are > going to publish to you with this checking. Ah, that's what I missed. This suggestion actually makes sense. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
