Hi Russell, On Wed, 6 May 2009 20:01:10 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 09:25:59AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Wed, 6 May 2009 08:15:48 +0100, Russell King wrote: > > > Since defconfig updates are always going to create lots of noise, and > > > the files are normally out of date, the *only* sensible way to handle > > > updates is to have one tree dealing with them per architecture. > > > > > > Spreading them across multiple trees and then expecting merges to sort > > > out the resulting mess is unreasonable; they just change far too much > > > when updates happen. Moreover, defconfig updates should be in their > > > own separate commit and not combined with other changes. > > > > I fail to see how you can handle configuration option renames > > gracefully with your proposed model. > > That's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about the > merge issues which is the BIG and I mean BIG as in 1000ft tall > letters BIG problem with scattering defconfig patches everywhere. > > The reality of defconfigs is that they're normally months out of date > with respect to the current kernel, and are occasionally updated by > the platform maintainers on an occasional basis (as has happened with > Nicolas' change which your tree has clashed with.) > > I've heard it argued that the only people who should ever touch defconfig > files are the platform maintainers themselves. What I'm suggesting is > one step closer to sanity than that position - having the arch maintainer > responsible for dealing with all changes to those files, thereby providing > a centralised point for synchronising and co-ordinating all defconfig > updates. > > If you think you have a better solution (no, throwing them into your own > I2C tree is NOT a solution - it's a cause of major problems) then please > state it. Thanks for the explanation, I understand your point. I was updating the defconfigs to make the maintainer's lives easier. If this has the opposite effect, I'll just stop doing it, that's less work for me. -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
