From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:05:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20120525190506.GB25102@windriver.com> References: <1337579954-17161-1-git-send-email-jon.maloy@ericsson.com> <20120521.023926.548567931208958037.davem@davemloft.net> <20120524195816.GA6487@windriver.com> <20120524.161231.1058511318935925082.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: , , , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]:53239 "EHLO mail1.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755467Ab2EYTFV (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2012 15:05:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120524.161231.1058511318935925082.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [Re: [PATCH 1/3] TIPC: Removing EXPERIMENTAL label] On 24/05/2012 (Thu 16:12) David Miller wrote: > From: Paul Gortmaker > Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:58:16 -0400 > > > But for new TIPC development features, future direction, and things like > > that -- making the right call requires intimate understanding of TIPC > > and its users, which is something that a maintainer should have but > > something I know I don't have. (A man has to know his limitations.) > > > > In this context, I'm not talking about these three trivial patches; but > > more complicated stuff that I imagine will be floated in the future. > > > > To that end, I can still review and call out issues in a crap patch when > > I see them. But I'd like to see new stuff sent to netdev, so that folks > > smarter than me have a chance to catch when a patch appears generally OK > > but is architecturally the wrong direction etc. > > For maintainership, taste is more important than deep knowledge of the > specific technology. Worst case you ask the submitter to explain the > background of their change more thoroughly and that information is an > absolutely requirement in the commit message and code comments > anyways. OK, what I'm hearing is that you'd prefer I continue to collect up TIPC patches and issue pull requests for a while longer. I can do that. Any specifics of how you'd like things done? -- e.g. if the reviews of new TIPC development patches takes place here on netdev before I stage them, will that create extra work for you dealing with them in patchworks? Paul.