That's not what I said.
What I said was that I think we get *better* quality by merging early.
In other words, you're turning the whole argument on its head, and
incorrectly so.
I claim that you are the one that is arguing for *worse* quality, by
arguing for a process that is KNOWN to tend to generate bad code
(out-of-tree drivers) as opposed to one that tends to fix things over time
(and note the "tends" in both cases - there are counter-examples, but
the trend is so clear that anybody who disputes it would seem to be either
blind or lying).
So here's my challenge: give me *one* reason to believe that quality
improves more out-of-tree than it does in-tree, and then you'll have a
point. But you'd better be able to explain the ton of historical data we
have that proves otherwise.
Until you do that, your blathering is just that - total blathering. The
process I advocate is the one that has historical data on its side. Yours
is just a failed theory.
Linus
--
