> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 01:45:38AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, 1 of May 2008,
david@lang.hm wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, 30 of April 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >> So your "fewer commits over a unit of time" doesn't make sense.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, yes it does. Equally well you could say that having brakes in a car
> > > > didn't make sense, even if you could drive it as fast as the engine allowed
> > > > you to. ;-)
> > > >
> > > >> We have those ten thousand commits. They need to go in. They cannot take
> > > >> forever.
> > > >
> > > > But perhaps some of them can wait a bit longer.
> > >
> > > not really, if patches are produced at a rate of 1000/week and you decide
> > > to only accept 2000 of them this month, a month later you have 6000
> > > patches to deal with.
> >
> > Well, I think you know how TCP works. The sender can only send as much
> > data as the receiver lets it, no matter how much data there are to send.
> > I'm thinking about an analogous approach.
> >
> > If the developers who produce those patches know in advance about the rate
> > limit and are promised to be treated fairly, they should be able to organize
> > their work in a different way.
> >...
>
> We cannot control who develops what.
