Daniel, On Mon, 5 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:Dropping architectures just for the sake of bisectability does more harm than good. We never dropped architecture support due to a rewrite in course of the whole preempt-rt series. We never dropped architecture support when we made parts of the code ready for upstream and made it bisectable. Keeping the architecture ports even in a maybe disfunctional state in the queue is important as we move them along and make the obvious changes to them so anyone interested to bring them up to date has not to start from scratch again, which is a major PITA (we just did one from scratch) Yes, and if you care to look at the code which was merged into mainline, then you might notice that it was always made bisectable. Usually it was rewritten pretty much as well. With half of the functionality dropped, renames along the line so it can not be verified whether it ends up to be the same code as it was before. If you really want to make it bisectable then apply the necessary rename patches to the queue first, make sure that it does not result in a code change and then refactor the whole thing. We have been there before. kernel development does not follow the "we want _now_" principle at all. Have you ever tried to yell at Linus "we want XYZ _now_" ? If you decide to try it, please keep me on CC - I want to enjoy the show. Sure, we are happy to trade a queue which has major updates of code close to mainline integration and has preserved the existing architecture support for some bisectable artifact. We went through this kind of discussion several times in the past and you still seem to believe that you can impose your POV on project maintainers. Again, that's not the way it works. Nobody will object the refactoring of the queue when it is done in a cooperative way. By creating a fact and trying to enforce it by any means you'll only reap controversy and attention, not any real progress. Exactly, for the majority of problems with preempt-rt, reporting the bug and waiting for the person who is able to decode it is the only choice. The hard to decode problems like subtle races are not decodable by bisection. Bisectable problems are pretty rare, because most of the problems are with PREEMPT_RT, which is a disruptive new feature that only gets activated late in the queue. Again, we are of course not opposed to a cooperative effort to make the queue fully bisectable - as long as it has no drawbacks. That means gradual steps, which is not rocket science. Thanks, tglx --
| Greg KH | Re: PCIE |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #11237] corrupt PMD after resume |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Chuck Ebbert | Why do so many machines need "noapic"? |
git: | |
| Thomas Glanzmann | fatal: serious inflate inconsistency |
| Yossi Leybovich | corrupt object on git-gc |
| Johannes Schindelin | Re: What's in git.git (stable) |
| Alex Riesen | [PATCH] Allow git-diff exit with codes similar to diff(1) |
| Bertram Scharpf | First install: Grub doesn't find partitions |
| Renaud Allard | very weak bridge performance |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| Wijnand Wiersma | Almost success: OpenBSD on Xen |
| Thor Lancelot Simon | Re: sysctl knob to let sugid processes dump core (pr 15994) |
| Nathan J. Williams | Re: Call for testing: ACPI standby/suspend support |
| matthew green | re: @booted_kernel magic symlink? |
| Greg A. Woods | Re: Fork bomb protection patch |
