[linux-lvm] lvm-1.0.1-rc4 and 2.4.13
Paul Dickson
dickson at permanentmail.com
Sat Nov 3 04:21:02 UTC 2001
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 08:44:24 +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> > * Patrick Caulfield <caulfield at sistina.com> [011026 10:56]:
> > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:54:05AM +0200, Ulrich Wiederhold wrote:
> >
> > Two questions:
> > 1. Why isn´t lvm-1.0.1-rc4 in the current Linux-Kernel? Why do I still
> > need to patch? I think this version is already stable and better than
> > the older one, isn´t it?
>
> It just isn't :-( we've submitted (most of) it to Alan Cox and his kernel is
> *much* more up-to-date than Linus'. I don't know just why the patches haven't
> been accepted by Linus. He is apparently happy to completely replace the VM but
> won't fix some fairly serious bugs elsewhere...bizarre.
Did Linus say why?
I ask this because Linus' submission policy is that you send patches to
him repeatedly (ever two or three weeks) until he acknowledges them.
Linus frequently gets behind in his E-mail, so he just deletes everything
he hasn't seen.
I have included below a message from Linus which I saved about sending
patches to him.
-Paul
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds wrote to LKML:
> Most importantly, when sending patches to me:
>
> - specify clearly that you really want to see them in the standard
> kernel, and why. I occasionally get patches that just say "this is a
> good idea". I don't apply them. Especially if they are cc'd to somebody
> else too, in which case I pretty much assume that it's a RFC, not a
> "real patch".
>
> - do NOT send patches in attachements. Send one patch per mail, in
> clear-text under your message, so that I can easily see the patch and
> decide then-and-there whether it looks ok. And if it doesn't look ok,
> and I do a "reply", the patch gets included in the reply so that I can
> point out which part of the patch I dislike.
>
> Don't worry about sending me five emails. That's FINE. I much prefer
> seeing five consecutive emails from the same person with five distinct
> subject lines and five distinct patches, than seeing one email with
> five attachements to it.
>
> - if your email system is broken, and you want to send patches as
> attachements to avoid whitspace damage, then please FIX YOUR EMAIL
> SYSTEM INSTEAD.
>
> - Don't point to web-sites. If I have to move the mouse outside my email
> xterm to work on the email, your email just got ignored.
>
> - Make your patches one sub-directory under the source tree you're
> working on. In short, your patches should look like something like
>
> --- clean/fs/inode.c ...
> +++ linux/fs/inode.c ..
> @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
> ...
>
> so that I can (regardless of where my source tree is) apply them
> with "patch -p1" from my linux top directory. Then I can just do a
>
> cd v2.4/linux
> patch -p1 < ~/multiple-emails-with-multiple-accepted-patches
>
> and not have to worry about three patches being based on
> /usr/src/linux, while two others not having a path at all and being
> individual filenames in linux/drivers/net.
>
> - and finally: re-send. If I had laser-eye surgery the fay you sent the
> patches, I won't have applied them. If I took a day off and spent it
> with the kids at the pool instead, I won't have applied them. If I
> decided that this weekend I'm not going to read email for a change, I
> won't have applied them.
>
> And when I come back to work a day or two later, I will have several
> hundred other emails to work through. I never go backwards in my
> emails.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/attachments/20011103/fa8f7e5a/attachment.sig>
More information about the linux-lvm
mailing list