[vdr] Re: Patches over patches (CVS?)

[Andreas Trauer <vdr@trauers.homelinux.net>]

Juri Haberland wrote:

> Andreas Trauer wrote:
>
>  
> > there are so many different patches and patch collections for VDR.
> >
> > Is there a reason that there is no CVS system (e.g. sourceforge.net) used?
> >    
> See, there are also many, many patches for the Linux kernel. So why
> aren't they in the main-stream Linux kernel releases?
>
> Answer:
> Because they are not accepted by the maintainer (be it Linus, Marcello or
> Klaus).
>
> Cheers,
> Juri
>  
Probably because of that the 2.6.0test6 kernel has
- features like "software suspend" still in development,
- VFS still without a POSIX compliant handling of kernel capabilities 
(instead it still uses roor/non-root for rights detection, when starting 
a new process)
- ...

I had a good experience with the "ethereal" development. You just post a 
patch to the mailing list and either it is checked into CVS very soon 
(less then one hour, if a maintainer is "online") or the maintainers 
reply why they think it is not a good patch. After this the contributor 
of the patch had no work with it anymore and anyone else could use it.
After all it will be the decision of Klaus, if he likes to move to a CVS 
version. If it is CVS, it is still the decision of Klaus, if he accepts 
patches or not. Maybe after some time he would trust a few other people 
to accept patches for him, i.e. getting maintainers with CVS write access.

Another possibility would be that Klaus keeps the "closed" development, 
i.e. he alone changes the mainline and watches for the stability of his 
VDR, after all it is his baby and it is great.

With my post I just wanted know what the people in this list think about 
this and of course, what Klaus thinks about it.

Andreas





--
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to ecartis@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.