On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 07:30:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Whether they are substantial one might dispute, but in my opinion these
are "above the level of a janitor-newbie".
E.g. how many newbies on the janitors list know how to fix bugs
involving complicated kconfig dependencies (like bools mixed with
tristates and selects)?
My personal opinion (I did put an RFC into the subject) is that
something that gets offered to kconfig users must be worth it.
If it would bring real benefits in it's current state or if it was just
the usual shaking-out of bugs after merging (I remember NOHZ caused
quite a few issues, and also recent stuff like PAT or snd_pcsp caused
problems that had to be fixed) problems were kind of unavoidable.
And e.g. both HIBERNATE/SUSPEND and GROUP_SCHED have some history of
causing regressions and resulting in people debugging and bisecting for
finding the cause of some regression (even Rafael spent some time
bisecting a 2.6.24-git group scheduling regression).
For HIBERNATE/SUSPEND the value for users is clear.
And no matter how many regressions it causes it is therefore worth it.
But how big is the value of GROUP_SCHED in it's current state for users?
And Peter said "group scheduling is horribly complex and was never
feature complete", so regular breakages are kind of expected until
it is feature complete.
If someone says most of my contributions are janitorial stuff that's
the truth.
But Peter claiming not a single contribution I did was above the level
of a janitor-newbie is not the truth.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
