LF support for kernel patches

[cherry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Cherry)]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 19:54 -0400, Smarduch Mario-CMS063 wrote:
> The link to PPA project page is http://ppacc.sf.net 

Got it.  The problem with TLA projects is that you get collisions with
other TLA projects.  :)

> 
> This is a genuine gap, we have quite a few carriers that depend 
> 
> on PPA for reliability, stability, root cause analysis, ... We have 
> 
> detailed requirements that we can share.

Yes, I understand that carriers probably rely on PPA.  So...

the way to present this to the kernel community would be to describe the
problem this will solve and to show how it could provide a benefit
across other usage models.  A requirement like, "CGL requires PPA for
reliability, stability, and root cause analysis." will not fly with the
kernel community.

Describing the problem, showing its relevance across the community, and
providing PPA as a possible solution will get you there.

Remember the efforts to get "online upgrade" capabilities into the
kernel?  We could learn from that experience.  :)

John


> 
> - Mario 
> 
> "LF Support" for pushing patches into the kernel may be a little
> disappointing for you. Currently, Linus and Steve Hemminger are the
> only "maintainers" at the LF and they don't give LF members any
> special treatment in getting patches in the kernel. The best way for
> member companies to push patches into the kernel is for member
> companies to become part of the kernel community and to follow the
> written and unwritten guidelines established by the kernel community.
> Jeff Garzik has written some guidelines for what a patch should look
> like...
> 
> http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
> 
> ...but the real trick is engaging with the kernel community. At the
> Collaboration Summit, the kernel developers asked for CGL requirements
> that applied to the kernel and were not in any of the mainline
> distributions yet. The kernel developers/maintainers are not
> interested in requirements that simply state a capabilities that
> require a given implementation, but requirement that describe exactly
> WHY the requirement is needed. This is the "gap analysis" that we
> discussed and should be part of the new CGL charter. Gap analysis
> applies not only to kernel gaps, but to gaps above the kernel.
> 
> If the PPA you are referencing is the personal package archive service
> (right now related to Launchpad), we should have a public discussion
> on how to engage with the community on this. Right now Launchpad is
> not open source, so there may be some issues here.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: Dan Kohn [mailto:dan@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: Smarduch Mario-CMS063
> Cc: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: LF support for kernel patches
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we're happy to help use the Technical Advisory Board as bridge
> between vendors and the LKML community.  Does PPA have a URL?
> 
>            - dan 
> -- 
> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
> COO, The Linux Foundation <http://www.linux-foundation.org>
> <http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Smarduch Mario-CMS063 wrote:
> 
> > I've been told that LF will help members push patches into
> > the kernel. We're close to engaging the community on PPA,
> > it would be beneficial to Motorola if there were notable developers
> > supporting the feature? Any advice on how we get this going?
> >  
> > - Mario
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lf_carrier mailing list
> > Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier